PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER &C.) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GILLINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

STANDING ORDER NO. 72A COMPLIED WITH:

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table, Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Standing Order 72A has been complied with.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table, Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords].
London Midland and Scottish Rail-way (Canals) Bill [Lords].
Herts and Essex Water Bill [Lords].
Wisbech Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Export Goods (Raw Materials)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with the greater supply of raw material now available, preference will be given to the production of goods for export rather than for home consumption.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The principal factor, now limiting the production of goods, both for home consumption and for export, is the supply of labour, on which, at this critical stage of the war, ever increasing demands are being made, and will continue to be made, in support of our military operations.

Sir S. Reed: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he does not agree that it is in the long-term interest of the community to encourage the export trade, even if it means going without goods we should like at home?

Mr. Dalton: Within reasonable limits, I think that is true but it is possible to carry that policy too far. At the moment, we must give first preference neither to export nor to home consumption, but to supporting our fighting men across the water.

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the stress laid in the recent White Paper on the importance of the export trade, he and his staff in the Board of Trade are giving every possible attention to lifting, at the earliest moment, the bans on the export trade?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, at the earliest moment consistent with the other considerations I have mentioned.

Laundry Service, Malvern

Major Conant: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds civil servants in Malvern are given a weekly laundry service, while the permanent residents often have to wait for five or six weeks.

Mr. Dalton: Most civil servants in Malvern send their washing direct to the


laundry like other permanent residents. But I find that a small number of civil servants, without the knowledge of the Directorate of Laundry Services, have been receiving preferential treatment. I have given instructions that this practice must cease. The laundry at Malvern has recently been giving the public a three to four weekly service. I am not satisfied that this performance could not be improved, and I have asked my Regional Director to see what can be done.

Curtain Material

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of issuing additional coupons to be use for the purchase of lower priced curtains, in view of the need for the replacement of these articles.

Mr. Dalton: Those entitled to utility furniture can apply for permits for a limited amount of curtain material, coupon free. I regret that, in view of the shortage of textiles, I cannot, at present, extend these arrangements.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great difficulty there is in obtaining this material? This material and towels are the two most needed things at the present time. Will he do what he can about it?

Mr. Dalton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend would suggest that towels are more needed than sheets. There are fewer towels than there were, because there are more sheets at the moment.

Government Surplus Stores (Disposal)

Mr. Loftus: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government has settled its policy in regard to the disposal of surplus stores after the war; and what steps have been taken to implement it.

Mr. Dalton: Good progress has been made in working out arrangements for the orderly disposal of Government surplus stores, and I hope to be in a position to make a further statement shortly.

Mr. Loftus: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the vital importance of this subject in the programme of reconstruction, when he expects to be able to make this statement? Will it be available to the leaders of industry?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly I hope to be able to make a statement. I do not want to commit myself on detail at the moment, but it may be useful to issue a short White Paper indicating the plans we have been making. A lot of thought has been given to this subject, and we have been in the closest touch with representatives of industry about it.

Swedish Firms (Statutory List)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare how many Swedish firms have been put on the black list of traders abroad with whom it is not lawful to have dealings of any kind.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): I have been asked to reply. The number of Swedish persons and concerns on the Statutory List is 437.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEVERIDGE AND UTHWATT REPORTS (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister without Portfolio when the Government's White Paper on Social Insurance and Land Development based on the Beveridge and Uthwatt Reports will be published.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 17th May to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Parker).

Mr. Mander: Cannot my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it will be published, if not now, at any rate before the Summer Recess begins?

Sir W. Jowitt: I am not going to make any promise beyond that contained in the answer of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mander: Will it be before the end of the year?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Could not the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, find out this information through the usual channels?

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that there was a promise that a White Paper would be published shortly after Easter?

Sir W. Jowitt: That White Paper deals with land development and questions dealing with land development should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Parliamentary Franchise (Register)

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the preoccupation in recent weeks of officers and men in preparation for a second front, he will extend the time limit for the completion of A.F. B2626.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): My hon. Friend will be glad to know that no time limit has been laid down for the completion of A.F. B. 2626.

Sir G. Shakespeare: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in view of the fact that there must be great numbers of fighting men in Burma, Italy and Normandy, apart from those at home, he will consult with the Home Secretary to see whether some new machinery could be devised? Otherwise, these men will be disfranchised.

Sir J. Grigg: No, they should not be. Arrangements have been made to bring the requirements of the Act to their notice and attention, just as much as in the case of soldiers in this country.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a time limit was imposed in certain units by certain commanding officers, and has he made it clear that this was irregular?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me some information. There is no time limit laid down in the law or by the Army Council.

Mr. Driberg: But will the right hon. Gentleman make that clear to these particular units?

Wounded Officers (Temporary Rank)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that whereas a noncommissioned officer when wounded receives the pay of the war substantive rank confirmed by 60 or 90 days' service in a

temporary rank an officer has to hold a temporary rank for go days before receiving war substantive rank in the next lower rank and, if wounded before the go days have been served, then only receives the pay and allowances applicable to two ranks lower; and whether, in view of this injustice, he will take whatever steps are necessary to accord to officers treatment corresponding to that enjoyed by noncommissioned officers.

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware that in these matters as in a great many others the rules which apply to officers are not the same as those which apply to non-commissioned officers. This question has been carefully considered on several occasions and it has now been decided that the following change should be made. Under the present rules a wounded officer retains his acting rank for three months, but this period does not count towards the period qualifying for temporary rank. In future it will count. As in all ranks up to and including Lieut.-Colonel acting rank is converted to temporary rank after three months, this change will mean that in practically all cases an officer will no longer drop two ranks in the circumstances described by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the changes will give very great satisfaction in the Army?

Dependants' Allowances

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement with regard to increase in dependants' allowances.

Sir J. Grigg: I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend last Tuesday.

Miss Ward: Last Tuesday my right hon. Friend said he had an announcement to make shortly. Could he give me a definiton of "shortly" and say when the announcement will actually be made?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Miss Ward: I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot define "shortly."

Personnel, South East Asia (Term of Duty)

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider reducing the period of the term of duty of Army


personnel in the South-East Asia Command in view of the climatic and other conditions; and if he will consider instituting or expediting a system of exchanges.

Sir J. Grigg: The scheme whereby British troops are brought back to this country when they have been abroad for over five years applies to all commands, including South East Asia Command. Every man who returns under this scheme must be replaced. All available man-power has been concentrated on giving the maximum strength to our operations on the Continent but when shipping and man-power permit I hope to reduce the period. While troops are overseas steps are taken to ensure that they do not stay for excessive periods in the more unhealthy areas.

Mr. John Dugdale: Can the Minister say why airmen can return and soldiers cannot? Do they not have the same difficulties in regard to shipping?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, but the number of soldiers involved is, I believe, seven or eight times that of the corresponding number of airmen and, therefore, seven times as many ships are required.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that some soldiers are very doubtful whether the promise to bring them back in the stated time will be kept?

Sir J. Grigg: They have no right to have such doubts.

Mr. Burke: Will the Minister consider, particularly, the claims of married men, some of whom have been away since early in 1940?

Sir J. Grigg: I have made it clear that I am extremely anxious to consider the claims of both married and single men, but in the present situation of shipping and man-power my hands are completely tied.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: When my right hon. Friend says that the soldier has no right to doubt, has he borne in mind the particular case I put forward for the attention of his Department, in which a soldier was sent behind the enemy lines in Burma, after his period had elapsed?

Private Soldier (Vaccination)

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that

Private Butler, R.A.M.C., was forcibly vaccinated recently by the medical officer, Major Carson, and, in order that such operation could be enforced, four men were instructed to hold Private Butler down; and, as this action violates King's Regulations, what disciplinary action he intends to take with Major Carson.

Sir J. Grigg: I have called for a report on this case.

Operations, France (Postal Arrangements)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce the arrangements for addressing of correspondence to troops taking part in the invasion of France.

Sir J. Grigg: Correspondence should continue to be addressed to the address in use immediately before the present operations started. Arrangements have been made to forward such correspondence to individuals who have left this country. This is merely a temporary arrangement, which will be made public.

Camps, Suffolk (Salvage Dumps)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the public protest of the Blyth Rural District Council, Suffolk, at the growing practice at military camps of depositing valuable equipment at salvage dumps and in refuse pits; that in this area such articles as machine-gun parts, mortar cartridges, periscopes and battle-dress have been found in dumps; that explosions have taken place; that similar protests have been made by magistrates at Weybread; and if, in view of the danger and waste and the discouragement to the salvage campaign, he will instruct commanding officers of military establishments that this practice must cease.

Sir J. Grigg: Inquiries are being made into these reports.

Mr. Granville: Will the Minister, as an old Treasury man, bear in mind the difficulty of running a "Salute the Soldier" campaign in a village when five machine guns in one day are thrown on to a refuse dump? Will he also bear in mind the difficulty of running salvage weeks when material is being dumped in this way?

Sir J. Grigg: I will first make inquiries to satisfy myself about the facts.

Infantry Units (Transferred Officers)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary for War, if, in view of the considerable number of officers who are now being transferred compulsorily from the R.A.O.C. to the infantry, he will reconsider his decision not to allow them to retain the Corps pay to which their technical qualifications entitle them.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) on 21st March.

Mr. Lawson: Do not the circumstances, about which I asked a Question previously, in regard to transference from the R.A.O.C. make it desirable that the position should be reviewed?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, the need for men in the infantry is very pressing, and I must take all possible steps open to me to do my best to meet that need.

Petrol Consumption

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has made inquiries in respect of the incident when a number of military vehicles attended on three separate occasions at a petrol station for the purpose of obtaining petrol; and if he has any further statement to make.

Sir J. Grigg: I am making further inquiries in an attempt to resolve the conflict of evidence which appears to exist. But as I am not sure that the unit in question is still in this country, the inquiries may not be entirely successful.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that the last inquiry was directed to a date other than that on which the incident took place, and that my right hon. Friend has now in his possession definite information from the proprietor of the garage, will he expedite the inquiry?

Sir J. Grigg: I said that I would expedite it as much as possible, but if the unit has left the country, I shall be in some difficulty.

Personnel (Income Tax Collection)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War the procedure adopted for the collection of Income Tax from Service personnel; and whether they are now being dealt with under the Pay-as-you-Earn scheme.

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the first part of the Question, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Leeds (Major Vyvyan Adams) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th January.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the practice is to set off tax against allowances due, and that requests to have the assessment looked into by the Army authorities are not replied to?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put a Question down about that. I do not think that can by any means be a universal practice. The statement I am circulating says that the tax is deductible from pay due.

Captain Plugge: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that Income Tax is now being retained, whether it would not simplify matters, if my right hon. Friend issued a new scale of pay for officers and men free of Income Tax?

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in his opinion, the scheme is working satisfactorily or whether, when claims are made for rebate, officers and men have to wait a very long time before they get what is due to them?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question down, if she wants me to make inquiries into the number of complaints we receive, as I have not the information with me now, judging from my own post bag, however, I do not think there is anything seriously wrong with the system.

Following is the statement:

Army personnel in general continue to pay their tax on the basis of the earnings of the preceding year. The tax on Army emoluments is required to be deducted


from the pay as and when it is paid and the Paymaster or Army Agent who issues the pay fixes the initial tax instalment at the beginning of the tax year by reference to last year's tax liability or to tax tables. These tables show the varying amounts of tax to be taken according to rate of pay and the personal and child reliefs to which the individual is entitled. It is necessary in certain cases where the tables are unsuitable to make provisional calculations of liability. The deduction so fixed continues until the officer or soldier renders his Income Tax return and the final assessment is made. The tax instalment is then adjusted. The collection is normally completed by March.

While the majority of commissioned officers of the Army pay tax on their pay, only a small proportion of other ranks do so. In their case the Regimental Paymaster or Army Agent notify the daily rate of deduction for Income Tax to the officer commanding the unit early in the year in order that cash payments to the soldier may be regulated accordingly. The microgram service is used for notification abroad.

Information on Income Tax matters likely to be of interest to the Army and copies of the tax tables employed in fixing the provisional deductions are published in Army Council Instructions from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War what quantity of Red Cross parcels despatched by the British, Canadian and American Red Cross Societies is now accumulated at Vladivostock; and whether any parcels have yet been allowed by the Japanese Government to go through to the prisoners' camps.

Sir J. Grigg: According to my information there are some 2,000 tons of Red Cross relief supplies waiting at Vladivostock for arrangements to be agreed for their transport to Japan. So far none have reached the prisoners.

Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether any reply has been received from the Japanese Government to the Russian intervention on this subject?

Sir J. Grigg: I think matters have been carried a stage further but, if it is a matter of negotiation, I would be grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend would put a Question down to the Foreign Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider summoning a special convention in Glasgow to discuss the question of postwar industrial development in Scotland which all those interested, including Scottish Members of Parliament, would have an opportunity to attend.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): In view of the stringent need for limitation of travel in present circumstances it would be difficult to arrange a convention of the nature suggested at the present time, but. as I have already indicated in reply to another question I am always prepared to endeavour to arrange a meeting either in Scotland or London, if a general desire for such a meeting is manifested through the usual channels. Meanwhile, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Scottish Council on Industry is actively considering questions of post-war development in Scotland.

Major Lloyd: Will the Minister keep this question in mind and, when a more suitable opportunity occurs, take advantage of it, as there are many demands from commercial and business firms in Scotland that such a convention should be held?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, but as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Railway Executive have issued a most firm appeal against unnecessary travel.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When my right hon. Friend is taking steps to call a convention for Scotland, will he give a hint to his colleagues in the Cabinet that England and Wales should have separate conventions at the same time?

Mr. Johnston: That question ought to be addressed to another Minister.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend circulate the findings of the Council of Industry for Scotland among Members, or publicly in the Press?

Mr. Johnston: That is being done periodically, but I will consult my hon. Friend with a view to seeing what further publicity may be given to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Domestic Supplies, West Lothian

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to increase supplies of coal to householders in West Lothian, in view of the inability of coal merchants to give customers an average of one cwt. per week.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I am advised that supplies received in West Lothian have been sufficient to supply consumers who need solid fuel for current consumption with one cwt. per week, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case of hardship in mind perhaps he will communicate with me.

Mr. Mathers: Is not the Minister aware that figures show that less than one cwt. per week has been available to consumers; and also that, in some cases, permits are available for people to get more than their ordinary ration because of illness and such considerations, which prevents others from getting their normal quota?

Major Lloyd George: On the other hand there are those who have more stocks than the permitted quantity and who are, therefore, not in the market for coal. Taking one with the other, it means an average of one cwt. per week.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not it a very strange arrangement that people cannot get one cwt. per week in West Lothian? Is not the Minister aware that there are 15,000 miners in West Lothian, and that there has not been a stoppage of work in that district since the war began?

Major Lloyd George: That may be so, but Scotland itself has been an increasing importer of coal since the war started, and I regret to say that, taking the country as a whole, of the very few disputes which have occurred since the agreement was signed, 89 per cent. have occurred in Scotland.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that this Question arises out of a declaration

by his Ministry that up to 15 cwt. could be obtained by consumers in two months? Does not his statement make that absurd?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. I said that Scotland had to have coal imported from England, and I answered the hon. Member's Question. He stated that there was inability to get one cwt. per week and I say, categorically, that there is sufficient fuel in West Lothian to get one cwt. a week. However, if there is any case where that is not so, perhaps the hon. Member would let me know.

Employment (Light-Work Miners)

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the loss in skilled workmen who are refused employment in or about mines on account of receiving light-work compensation; and whether he is prepared to have an enquiry to ascertain the number which could be employed.

Major Lloyd George: My regional controllers are making every effort to ensure the re-employment in the industry of men in receipt of light-work compensation as soon as they become fit for work, and I am not aware of any evidence of refusal on the part of employers to engage men of this type if suitable work is available. The position is kept under constant review and my regional controllers will continue their efforts. As, however, my hon. Friend will be aware, the kinds of work on which such men can be employed are extremely limited and, in many cases, work of which they are capable cannot immediately be provided.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, judging by the amount offered in compensation, the injury in many cases cannot be severe, and the work that they could do as practical men is equal to the work that the Bevin boys can do? Is he also aware that there is an opinion that Bevin boys are preferred to practical men with light injuries?

Major Lloyd George: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member will give me examples, I will look into them.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to have an inquiry into the number of these men who could be usefully employed?

Major Lloyd George: On such information as I have, I am not aware of any evidence. If the hon. Member can, give me one or two cases which would justify an inquiry I will consider it.

Mr. Foster: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in a large number of cases, light-work men have been refused employment, that the employer has no difficulty in securing their release from the National Service Officer, and that a large number of skilled practical men are being lost to the industry?

Major Lloyd George: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made by the committee of experts considering the proposed Severn Barrage; their terms of reference; and the names of the members serving on the committee.

Major Lloyd George: As regards terms of reference and membership of the Committee on the Severn Barrage Scheme, I would refer to the replies which I gave on 30th November and 14th December last to my hon. Friends the Members for Everton (Mr. Kirby) and Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). As regards the progress of their work, I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 2nd May to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith). I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these answers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY)

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, having regard to the importance of an adequate supply of electric power at low cost for the development of new industrial processes, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that such a supply is available.

Major Lloyd George: The provision of electric power at low cost for new industrial processes cannot be considered apart from the general problem of the re-organisation of the Electric Supply Industry which is at present before the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATIONS, DOMINIONS (DETENTION)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if defence regulations exist in any of the Dominions providing for the detention of a British subject without charge or trial, or facility for appeal.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I understand that in Canada, Australia and the Union of South Africa there are Regulations similar to those of Defence Regulation 18B, i.e. they provide for detention, by Order of a Minister, of persons likely to prove a danger to the State, with a right to the person concerned to present his case to a special Committee or tribunal advisory to the Minister.

Sir I. Albery: Is there any further appeal to the Governor or Governor-General?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I should have to make inquiries on that point.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Have these Regulations actually been used?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I should have to make inquiries into that question also.

Sir I. Albery: Is my hon. Friend aware that the supplementary question that I have just asked, is contained in the original Question? I think it should have been possible to give a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (BRITISH MISSION TO UNITED STATES)

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Minister of Production whether he will state the purpose of the visit to the U.S.A. of the British Textile Mission, headed by the United Kingdom cotton controller; and whether, in particular, the Mission is empowered to discuss the elimination of the cotton merchants of this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): At the invitation of my right hon. Friend a Mission of seven members visited the United States and Canada between 17th March and 2nd May last. The sole purpose of the Mission was to study the methods used in the cotton industry in the United States and to advise upon any changes in methods that


could be made in this country in order to increase the supply of cotton goods.

Sir D. Hacking: Was the elimination of cotton merchants in this country actually discussed or not?

Mr. Garro Jones: I have given the right hon. Gentleman the terms of reference, to which I have nothing to add. Anything that fell outside those terms of reference, would not be authorised.

Mr. Burke: Will the report be made public?

Mr. Garro Jones: That is a different question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the imporance of the issues involved in these missions to the United States, surely the result should be submitted to the House of Commons?

Mr. Garro Jones: I have not said it will not be published.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the deputation would have shown a high degree of intelligence if they had discussed the elimination of the merchants?

Sir D. Hacking: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether or not the elimination of the cotton merchants was discussed?

Mr. Garro Jones: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report and, obviously, I cannot usefully inquire about the contents of a document which has not yet been received, much less about hearsay reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (POST-WAR MAN-POWER)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an undertaking that under the proposals of Cmd. 6527, priority will be given to agriculture and small holders especially immediately after demobilisation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): The White Paper outlines the Government's proposed policy for maintaining full employment after the war. I am not clear what aspect of those pro-

posals my hon. Friend has in mind, but he can rest assured that the position of agriculture will be fully considered in connection with the steps to be taken in due course to implement the Government's general policy.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vital necessity after the war of producing as much as possible and importing as little food as possible from overseas?

Mr. Williams: We are as anxious to do that as the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL CANTEENS (POST-WAR CONTINUANCE)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to continue existing legislation or to introduce new legislation for the purpose of maintaining in existence after the war the present system of workers' canteens in industrial establishments, on dock estates and on civil engineering sites, etc., which are of a permanent character.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): My right hon. Friend contemplates that the existing requirements in this respect should be continued, and, if necessary, improved.

Mr. Kirby: Will my hon. Friend express to his right hon. Friend the gratitude of the many thousands of workers involved?

Mr. Granville: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a good deal of the success of these canteens depends on food subsidies, and will be consider whether they are to be continued in the post-war period?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to institute an inter-Departmental inquiry with a view to a reduction in the inequalities between the three Services regarding the periods of overseas service.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether, while it is recognised that the granting of home leave for all men abroad must depend on the availability of


shipping, there is any reason why the qualifying period for such leave should not be the same for the Army and the R. A. F.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Every effort is made to equalise the conditions of service in these matters in all the Armed Forces but I regret that, owing to war-time conditions, this is difficult to achieve. I fear that an inquiry, as is suggested, will not solve these difficulties.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have been assured from time to time that the difficulties consist, first, in the unmanageable numbers the Army is said to have and, secondly, in the fact that the two other Services have their own means of transport? Would not an inquiry between the Services do something to improve the position of soldiers as compared with sailors and airmen?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think the hon. Member is correct. I have referred him to the full reply that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). There are many great difficulties.

Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the discontent that there is in the country over this question? Is if not possible to equalise the qualifying period, and let the men concerned wait until shipping becomes available?

Mr. Attlee: I am aware that there is natural feeling about this, but the difficulty is really due to operational conditions.

Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the grievance felt by the men in khaki is that members of the Air Force, who are on the ground staff, can have leave whereas they, though they have undergone considerable hardships, have to wait, simply because they are in a different Service?

Mr. John Dugdale: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that what the Army feels is that the War Office does not look after them as well as the Air Force looks after its men?

Mr. Tinker: Will not my right hon. Friend consider the matter again? It is causing grave concern to everyone.

Mr. Attlee: I will certainly look into it as fully as possible, and I shall be glad to have any information hon. Members can give me.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman says one is not correct in stating what the difficulties are. Is he not aware that I am only paraphrasing what we have been told only to-day by the right hon. Gentleman sitting next him? Would not an inquiry solve these apparent discrepancies between the two right hon. Gentlemen?

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, with the extension of the Far Eastern war, these difficulties are likely to become more acute and widespread, and will he not take steps in advance to prevent them?

Sir A. Knox: Is it possible to appoint a co-ordinating Minister to equalise the conditions between the different Services?

Oral Answers to Questions — STERLING BALANCES

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government for sterling balances to be funded in the form of long term loans to this country from the holders of sterling balances.

Sir J. Anderson: This is a matter which will be kept under review, but I have no statement to make on it at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL GOLD RESERVES

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately how much gold was held by the governments and central banks in all countries, at the most recent convenient date, and can he give figures for Great Britain, America, Russia and France for the years 1921 and at the latest convenient date.

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: A mistake has crept into the Question. Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to include in the answer the year 1932? I want the quantity of gold for both years.

Following is the answer:

The published gold reserves of central banks and governments on December 31st, 1942, amounted to the equivalent of approximately £7,625 millions. This excludes our own and other gold reserves, the amount of which is not published at present.

The published gold reserves of the United Kingdom, United States of America and France on 31st December, 1921, were as follows:



Millions of fine ounces


United Kingdom
36.9


United States of America
155.8


France
38.6

The published gold reserve of the United States of America in December, 1943, was 21,938 millions dollars, or about 626 million fine ounces.

No figures of the Russian gold reserves and no recent figures of those of the United Kingdom and France have been published.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (FINANCES)

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what amount of money was owing to this country by the Government of India previous to the outbreak of war; and what amount is now owing by this country to India.

Sir J. Anderson: The sterling public debt of India was approximately £350 millions at the end of March, 1939, and approximately £26 millions at the end of May, 1944. The sterling assets of the Reserve Bank of India, the bulk of which are held as reserve against the Indian note issue, have increased from about £55½millions on 31st March, 1939, to about £745 millions at the end of May, 1944, largely as the result of payments in sterling to the Reserve Bank of India against rupee payments in India on account of expenditure incurred by the Government of India on behalf of H.M. Government. There was also£7½millions held in the Silver Redemption Reserve on both dates.

Sir I. Albery: Is there any kind of Lend-Lease arrangement with India; and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present financial agreements with India

are satisfactory and have been of assistance during the war?

Sir J. Anderson: I must ask to see that Question on the Paper.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Chancellor give an assurance that there will be no attempt to prejudice the Indian position in regard to credit balances by any attempt to manipulate the balances such as is suggested in the City columns of some newspapers, and, presumably, as might be inferred from the Question?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot possibly deal with these matters by way of question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT POLICY (TRADE FLUCTUATIONS)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish statistics of the fluctuations of trade and employment relating to periods when trade was beginning to decline, on which is based the fundamental assumption in the White Paper on Employment Policy, namely, that a decline in the demand for capital goods precedes and causes a decline in the demand for consumption goods.

Sir J. Anderson: The White Paper on Employment Policy assumes that the main cause of fluctuations in the demand for consumption goods is the variations that take place from time to time in the national income, and so in consumer's purchasing power. This is not true of the demand for capital goods, which fluctuates often for quite different reasons. Such fluctuations in the demand for capital goods affect the national income and thus indirectly cause sympathetic fluctuations in the demand for consumption goods; but the speed with which a major decline in expenditure on capital goods affects expenditure on consumption goods is so great that actual precedence in time is often hard to establish statistically.

Sir H. Williams: As that long answer is in conflict with such statistics as I have been able to look up, will the Chancellor have another go at this, because his assumption is totally unsound as far as I can find out?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to give me the statistics he has been able to look up.

Sir H. Williams: They are all to be found in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette."

Sir J. Anderson: I did not know to what my hon. Friend was referring.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANC EXCHANGE RATE

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a rate of exchange for the franc has yet been settled.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. It has been agreed that the rate shall be fixed at 200 francs to £1.

Mr. Hynd: In view of that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the position that has been created by the issue of a special franc for the invasion forces with a reply that he gave on 6th April, 1944, that nothing would be done to prejudice the French franc without previous consultation with the French National Committee?

Sir J. Anderson: The reply I gave in April, 1944, was to the effect, if I remember aright, that the rate of exchange would not be fixed without the fullest consultation with the French National Commitee. That assurance has been fully carried out.

Captain Plugge: Will this question, apply equally to the Belgian franc?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a different matter altogether.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand my right hon. Friend's answer to apply to the authorised French franc in France as well as to the francs which, for some reason, the American Government are proposing to issue?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a separate question.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister seriously consider taking over the banks and thus effectively organising this whole question?

Sir J. Anderson: That has nothing to do with this matter.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Are these, in fact, Allied military francs, or are they francs issued by some arrangement between the

Allies and the National Committee of Liberation?

Sir J. Anderson: My answer was concerned solely with the question of the rate of exchange to be fixed as between francs and sterling, and must be understood in that sense.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that under modern economic conditions it seems that there should be as many different rates of exchange as possible, will my right hon. Friend arrange for everybody to issue currency and so save a lot of trouble?

Mr. Kirkwood: Has any member of the Cabinet ever raised the question at a Cabinet meeting of taking over the banks of this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (INDUSTRIAL HOSTELS)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed as a temporary post-war measure to use existing industrial hostels for the housing of families who are otherwise without homes; and how many families could be accommodated in this way.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): As my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and my right hon. and learned Friend have explained on previous occasions, the Government are investigating the possibilities of converting such of these hostels as may be released into dwellings to meet some part of the immediate post-war need. A typical hostel has already been partly converted in order to show what can be done. My right hon. and learned Friend is not yet in a position to state the total number of dwellings it will be practicable to provide in this way.

Mr. Kirby: Will the hon. Lady please urge upon her chief the need to pursue this matter to the utmost limits, so that none of the hostels shall be lost as possible temporary means of housing the people in the first few post-war years?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is why this work has been done. It is to convert a certain number of them to see if they can be made suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK AND DAIRIES REGULATIONS (ENFORCEMENT)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases he has, acting under the powers vested in him by Section 93, Food and Drugs Act, 1938, empowered an officer of his Department to execute and enforce provisions in relation to Milk and Dairies Regulations, where he has been of opinion that a local authority has failed, in relation to the Milk and Dairies Regulations, to execute or enforce the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.

Miss Horsbrugh: Section 93 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, relates to provisions of the Act which it is the duty of a Food and Drugs Authority to enforce. The authorities defined in the Act as Food and Drugs Authorities are not responsible for the enforcement of Milk and Dairies Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (WIRELESS RECEIVING SET)

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware of the desire of Members of the House of Commons to have, as early as possible, all available authentic information about operations in progress; and if he will, therefore, arrange for an efficient wireless receiving set to be installed in some convenient and accessible place in the precincts of the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): Yes, Sir. A wireless receiving set has been installed in the Committee Room corridor on the first floor, outside Room No. 13. If Members consider that the set might conveniently be placed in some other position I would suggest that they approach the Authorities of the House.

Major Adams: Will my lion. Friend see that this new set is more efficiently maintained than its predecessor?

Mr. Hicks: I understand that the Post Office have given a good set, and I suggest that we should try it.

Mr. Bowles: Was it given by the Government, the Post Office, or by some private person?

Mr. Hicks: It was supplied by the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I would like to make an announcement on Business. I announced last week that we would make an arrangement to debate Regulation 18B, and the detention of an hon. Member of the House. I have considered this matter carefully, and I suggest that the points which my hon. Friends have in mind and which are set out in two Motions on the Paper can properly be dealt with in Committee of Supply without in any way limiting the Debate.

[That this House having acquiesced in the detention of an honourable Member without trial or charge, in view of the authority conferred upon the Home Secretary by Regulation 18B, is now of the opinion that such detention for a period of over four years threatens the ancient and well established right of the House to the service of its Members, constitutes a dangerous precedent damaging to the prestige of the House and ought now to cease unless justified to the House, if necessary, in secret session.]

[That this House is of opinion that the time has come for reconsideration of Regulation 18s and of the practicability of bringing to trial those now in detention on the sole responsibility of the Home Secretary.]

I think that this is the right way to handle it. The salary of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accordingly be put down.

Sir I. Albery: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will further consider this matter. Private Members' time has already been taken from us, and there seems little point in Private Members putting specific Motions on the Paper and collecting the signatures of Members in support if they are not to be discussed. Putting down the Home Secretary's salary does not appear to me to cover the desires of hon. Members on this question. It is not an attack upon the Home Secretary but a desire to discuss a matter which is of supreme importance to the House of Commons as a body. It seems to me very unfortunate that the Government are going to take the action which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Eden: I do not think there is anything unusual in my suggestion. There are two Motions, one of which deals with


one aspect of the question and the other with another aspect. The House having asked for facilities, we have proposed this arrangement for the Debate. The first answer to my hon. Friend in regard to the putting down of Private Members' Motions is, therefore, that his action in putting down a Motion is resulting in this Debate. Otherwise, there would probably be no Debate. As regards the scope of the Motion, hon. Members will realise that these matters fall within the administration of the Home Secretary. It is perfectly right and proper, and not a criticism of him, that a discussion which affects his administration should be taken on his Vote.

Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who do not necessarily propose, if there is a Division, to vote for my hon. Friend's Motion, are concerned that the question should have been dealt with in this way, for the reason that here was a clear issue on which the House was asked to express its opinion? It is well known that in Committee of Supply, one cannot raise that clear issue, without voting against the Minister's salary, which many of us may not want to do. Will my right hon. Friend explain more fully the reason for this change of arrangement?

Mr. Eden: There is no change of arrangement. I told the House last Thursday that I was anxious not to limit the Debate. There are two Motions, one dealing with the detention of a Member of this House, and the other with Regulation 18B. I am informed that the first Motion would not enable a wide Debate to take place, and so I have put forward the proposed arrangement, which, I think, will be more for the convenience of the House.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter? For a long time hon. Members have desired to debate the question of the detention of a Member of this House—not a particular Member but any Member. I have a Motion on the Paper—

[That in the opinion of this House Regulation 18B of the Defence (General) Regulations should be modified so as to provide that the detention of a Member of this House, under the powers con-

ferred by the Regulation, should be reported immediately to the House and should not continue without the approval of the House after consideration of the charges against the Member and his defence against them.]

That is entirely a domestic matter for the House of Commons and does not involve any party or any particular Ministers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that every effort seems to have been made to burke a discussion of a specific Motion by every artifice which can be devised. The House of Commons may understand what these artifices are, and the reasons for them, but people in the country outside do not understand them, and are getting impatient at being fobbed off with arrangements the meaning of which they cannot understand.

Mr. Eden: I do not accept any of the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend and I do not know what he means by being "fobbed off." There are two Motions on the Paper, one dealing with the narrow issue of the detention of a Member, and another dealing with the question of 18B and signed by a great number of Members of this House. The Government are under no obligation to take one or other of those Motions, in seeking to give the House an opportunity of discussion. As there are two different Motions, not covering the same ground, I have suggested putting down the Home Secretary's salary, so that both subject matters can be discussed. That is fobbing off nothing and need cause no indignation in the breast of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates the general feeling of the House. The way in which he proposes to take this discussion would mean criticism of the administration of the Home Secretary but I think the House wishes to discuss—is very anxious to discuss—the Regulation itself, and not to blame the Minister for his administration of it. The House wishes to discuss whether such a Regulation is in accordance with the general wish of the House.

Sir I. Albery: Before my right hon. Friend replies, may I ask him a further question? Has he not been approached since we last met with the suggestion that a third Motion should be put down, em-


bracing the two which he has already mentioned, and thus getting rid of the objection that the original Motion in my name and the names of other hon. Members was of too limited a nature? Has he considered that suggestion, and if so, will he give it further consideration?

Mr. Gallacher: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I would like to ask him, in view of the very serious changes that have taken place in the whole situation since these Motions were put down, whether he considers it desirable to have such a discussion as is now proposed. Would not such a discussion have a very damaging effect on the Forces, as well as among the people of this country and among our Allies? I think it would be a very serious step to have a discussion of this question in the existing situation.

Mr. Eden: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) may I say that I am seeing to the point he makes, and that the point is covered by the Home Secretary's Vote. The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for the administration of the Regulation and will be responsible for any change that is brought about. I have consulted my right hon. Friend, and he does not feel, any more than the Government feel, that the discussion is necessarily a stricture upon him; but we consider that this is the most practical way to deal with the matter. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) I am afraid that I have not had a chance to see the terms of any third Motion, but I have given consideration to the whole question, in consultation with the Home Secretary, and I believe that the House would have a more satisfactory discussion if they would take my advice.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members of this House, and many people outside, believe that such a discussion will be a great waste of Parliamentary time, while our men are fighting on the other side?

Sir William Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the course he has suggested will prevent Members from expressing their opinion on the very important matter of the detention of a Member of this House? Surely this discussion is not a criticism of the Home Office as a whole. The House wishes to discuss the

detention of one of its own Members; but the proposal which my right hon. Friend makes will prevent the House from expressing its opinion.

Mr. Eden: The Home Secretary and I have discussed this matter, and we fully realise the object of the Debate. It is my right hon. Friend's responsibility, and the House of Commons can express itself both in speech and in vote, if it so desires.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Sir Edward Grigg: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I rose on a point of Order to ask you a question about Business and that I rose before you put the Question on the Business Motion?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member can ask his question later when the Committee stage starts.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this House has any way by which it can express its feelings, as to whether this undesirable Debate referred to in the discussion on Business should take place?

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK AND DAIRIES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (in this Resolution referred to as 'the new Act') to amend the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, relating to Milk and Dairies Regulations and other matters connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the new Act; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable under the Superannuation Acts out of moneys provided by Parliament which may be attributable to the provisions of the new Act extending the application of the rules made under section nine of the Superannuation Act, 1935."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK AND DAIRIES) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

The Chairman: I propose to call the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

Sir Edward Grigg: On a point of Order. I wish to ask the Leader of the House about the procedure to-day. I was informed by Mr. Speaker that if the point was put at the beginning of the Committee stage, it would be in Order. If the proceedings in Committee on this Bill are protracted, as they may well be, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Third Reading will not be taken to-day?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I think the hon. Member's request is a perfectly reasonable one. If the Committee stage were protracted—we hope it will not be—the Third Reading would not be pressed for to-day.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 20 of principal Act.)

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, in page r, line to, to leave out "registration," and to insert "licensing."
I think the Amendment is perfectly clear. Registration is, normally, a process in which everyone who falls into the category being registered is entitled to be registered. Licensing implies discretion, and as, under this Bill there is a Ministerial discretion, I think "licensing" and not "registration" should be inserted. I want the public to know what we are trying to do. I want this word put in the Bill because this is the first Measure, apart from those relating to the sale of alcoholic liquor, which introduces into this country the conception of the corporate State. [Interruption.] It is just that—you are not to be entitled to go into the industry, without either the permission of the State, or those inside the industry. When we get a Bill incorporating that Fascist doctrine attention should be drawn to it. It is no good the Minister of Agriculture grinning rather amiably. In this Bill the Minister is taking the power to refuse a licence to a man because he does not like him. It is 18B all over again. If the Minister thinks that a man is not going to comply with the regulations, he may refuse or cancel the registration. I think my purpose is clear, and while I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, I do think that, constitutionally, this is a point of the utmost importance.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The hon. Gentleman has put forward his objection to the word "registration." He

would rather have the word "licensing," but, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, he will find the word "register" is used in that Act for premises used for the manufacture of ice cream, or for the preparation or manufacture of sausages and manufactured foods. The hon. Gentleman said he would prefer the word "licensing." He will agree that it makes for some confusion because in Section 21 of that Act, the word "licence" is used where the provision is made for licensing in relation to the special designations of milk. Thus we have the registration of the dairyman, but a licence for special designation of milk, and if the same word were used for the two meanings, I think the hon. Member will agree, there might be some confusion. In the Act the word "registration" is already used, and the word "licence" is used in a slightly different sense. Perhaps he will agree that we can leave it this way.

Sir H. Williams: I agree that the hon. Lady is in a difficulty with regard to terminology, but she has not answered my point. This Bill proposes that a milk dealer, before he can do business, must be registered, not that every milk dealer must be registered. It is because of the fact that, under Sub-section (2, b), registration can be withdrawn, that it ceases to be registration, and is in fact licensing. Public-houses are not registered, they are licensed. Doctors are registered, on the other hand, because every man who has passed the necessary examination, and gone through the prescribed study, is, automatically, entitled to be registered by the General Medical Council, and that registration can only be cancelled, if he has committed a medical crime and has been properly tried by the General Medical Council. Here we have no appeal of a proper kind. Here it is licensing, not registering, and I object to a misleading term being used in the Bill.

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps I might say one word more on this. Already there is power, using the word "register," to withdraw registration under the Food and Drugs Act. I know that if hon. Members were drafting that Act now, they might find more suitable words, but if we begin we shall have to make further Amendments. I do think the word "licence" should not be used in two senses.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Minister withdraw registration because of something "in his opinion"? That is the issue.

Miss Horsbrugh: It is not the Minister; it is the local authority.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Lady must read her own Bill. I do not ask Ministers to understand their Bills; that is beyond the capacity of many of them. Other people draft them, and Ministers come before us to try and explain them, but here it is stated:
for the refusal or cancellation of any such registration by the Minister if, in his opinion …

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry if I did not actually read the Clause, but if the hon. Member will look at the Act of 1938 to which I have referred he will find it is stated, in Section 14, Sub-section (4):
If a person on whom a notice is served under the last preceding subsections fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the local authority, they may refuse the application or, as the case may be, cancel the registration of the premises, and shall forthwith give notice to him of their decision in the matter, and shall, if so required by him within fourteen days of their decision, give to him within forty-eight hours a statement of the grounds on which it was based.
It is exactly the same. The word "registration" is used there.

Mr. Turton: Under the 1938 Act each new dairy farmer has to apply for registration but local authorities have no power to refuse an application. It is automatic registration. Here there is nothing automatic and it, therefore, becomes a licence. It may well be that if this Amendment is carried, other consequential Amendments will have to follow.

The Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with matters which will come under later Amendments.

Mr. Turton: I am trying not to do so.

Sir Harold Webbe: The Minister has explained that, under the original Act, there is power for the local authority to withdraw registration. I am not clear whether, under the original Act, there is power for the local authority to refuse to give registration in the first place.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. They may refuse the application for registration for ice-

cream and other premises under Section 14 of the 1938 Act; and the same thing applies in other legislation under which other matters are registered. I was asked whether there is any other case where the word "registration" is used, where registration can be refused. There are several cases. One which I know more intimately than others, is in connection with adoption societies, because I, personally, introduced that provision. Under that, the local authority can refuse registration.

Sir William Davison: Is not this an extreme example of the regrettable effect of legislation by reference? Neither the Committee nor the Minister knows where we are. We are continually being referred to some other Statute. That shows the great difficulty in which Members are put by this continual reference to other legislation.

Miss Horsbrugh: The only reason why I referred to another Statute, and to other cases of the same sort, was that I was asked whether the word "registration" was used with the same meaning in other Statutes. That is why I referred to the 1938 Act, and to other matters, such as adoption societies and nursing homes.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Lady has not quoted enough. If she will look at Section 14, Sub-section (2), of the other Act, she will see that it says:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the local authority shall …
register premises. In other words, they have to start by registering, and then they have to prove their case, not give their opinion. In this Bill, if the Minister thinks you should not be registered, you do not get registration, whereas, in the other Act, you are registered unless certain things are proved against you. It is shifting the onus on to the Minister.

The Chairman: I must point out that we are not discussing the previous Act.

Sir H. Williams: I am sorry to get out of Order, but I suggest, with great respect, that it was the hon. Lady and not I, who first referred to that.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: Mr. Erskine-Hill.

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that my Amendment, which is to leave out "Minister of


Agriculture and Fisheries" in line 13, and to insert "local authority," and which carries with it certain consequential Amendments, is out of Order?

The Chairman: Yes; it would be quite contrary to the intention of the Bill, as decided on the Second Reading. The hon. Member will remember that he specifically asked for a decision on that issue.

Mr. Turton: With great respect, I would point out that, on the Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health asked that a system of compromise with the local authorities should be brought in. This Amendment is put down in the hope of fulfilling such a request.

Sir E. Grigg: During the Debate on the Second Reading, we were assured by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that every consideration would be given to the question of giving more responsibility in this matter to local authorities. It was on that understanding, quite definitely, that we agreed to the provision in the Bill.

The Chairman: On the Second Reading the matter was decided on a Division and there it stands.

Sir E. Grigg: Is it your Ruling, Major Milner, that an undertaking given by a Member on the Front Bench is not an undertaking?

The Chairman: I am not concerned with questions of undertakings; I am concerned with matters of Order. If this Amendment were to be carried, it would be quite contrary to the decision taken by the House on Second Reading. For that reason, I cannot permit it to be called or argued.

Mr. Petherick: Without in the least disputing the Ruling of the Chair, may I put forward a consideration which may, conceivably, have escaped your notice, Major Milner? The long Title of this Measure is
A Bill to Amend the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, relating to Milk and Dairies Regulations and other matters connected therewith.
There is no mention in that of what the Clause is for, namely, to hand over the whole powers to the Minister. Therefore, it seems to me that the Amendments on the Paper come within the scope of the

Bill, and are not ruled out, if I may say so, as a result of the Debate and the vote on the Second Reading.

The Chairman: I am sorry but I have given my decision, and the hon. Member's remarks are really not relevant.

Mr. TURTON moved,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,

but The CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to move—

Sir E. Grigg: On a point of Order. Can an opportunity be given to a Member on the Front Bench to explain what was meant by the undertaking which was given? Apparently, the whole undertaking is to be passed over sub silentio. I do not think that that is fair to the Committee.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Government have very much in mind what was said by my hon. Friend on the Second Reading, and, on an opportune Amendment, I propose to say what we have in mind; but it does not arise now.

Sir E. Grigg: If there is an Amendment put down by the Government covering this matter, why cannot an Amendment in the name of a Private Member, which covers the same ground, be moved?

The Chairman: There can of course be no distinction between an Amendment moved by a Private Member and one by the Government, but I do not understand that the Government are thinking in precisely the same terms.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: The Minister says that there is a possibility that this whole matter may come up on a relevant Amendment. May I suggest, for the sake of peace and progress, the Minister should be good enough to say what Amendment it is, in order that we may be prepared to speak on that Amendment?

The Chairman: I cannot, of course, indicate what the Government have in mind because I do not know. I understood the Minister to say, quite clearly, that an opportunity will arise elsewhere on


the Bill; and I do not doubt that that is the case. But the question before the Committee at the moment is the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill).

Sir E. Grigg: On a point of Order. I understood from my right hon. Friend that his Amendment will deal with the very point which you have just ruled out of Order. The question I want to put to you, with great respect, is: Why is an Amendment in Order when it is moved by a Member on the Front Bench, while an Amendment on the same point is out of Order when put down by another hon. Member?

The Chairman: Clearly there can be no discrimination of any kind. I do not know what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that, at a later stage, there will an opportunity to say something on the point and I have no doubt that he is correct.

Mr. Hudson: As I understand it, the point will, in fact, arise upon the Amendment which has just been called.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: While fully appreciating the reasons, Major Milner, which led you to give your decision, and of course that decision is final, will it not be in Order on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to raise this whole principle, and also the failure of the Government to live up to their promises?

The Chairman: We cannot have a discussion upon any matter which would nullify a decision taken by the House upon the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir A. Southby: Surely the Committee could refuse to pass Clause 1 of this Bill.

Sir H. Webbe: The Minister has indicated that he proposes to deal with this matter upon an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) which has been called by the Chair. May I ask, Major Milner, whether it will be in Order upon this Amendment which you have now called, to discuss the question of the responsibilities of local authorities as against those of the Minister?

The Chairman: It will not be in Order to do that.

Mr. Petherick: rose—

The Chairman: We must really make progress. Clearly this discussion cannot go on indefinitely.

Sir E. Grigg: With the greatest respect, may I put this point? You have, apparently, ruled that the Minister will be in Order in dealing with the point under discussion, which is the same point as is raised on an Amendment which you have just ruled to be out of Order, and what we here fail to understand is the fairness of that Ruling.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will forgive me, but the failure is really on his part. I have not given any Ruling as to what may or may not be in Order, when the Minister comes to deal with the point.

Sir H. Webbe: I am sorry to be so persistent, but I understood the Ruling to be that it would riot be in Order for the Minister to deal with the position of local authorities on the Amendment which you have just called. The Minister has already stated that that was the occasion which he hoped to take for giving the views of the Government on this point. If he will not be in Order in doing so, can the Minister indicate where he proposes to do it?

The Chairman: That is raising a hypothetical question.

Mr. Petherick: All we have done so far is to pass the Second Re ding of this Bill, the long Title of which I have already read out. Can you tell me, Major Milner, at what point during the Committee stage it would be in Order to discuss whether we should or should not transfer part or the whole of the functions of the local authorities, in relation to milk to the Minister? If we are not allowed to discuss that at any point, it seems to me that the opponents of the Bill have no possible method, in Committee, of expressing their views.

The Chairman: That point should wait till the question arises.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Surely on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we can discuss it?

Earl Winterton: Is it not a well-known Ruling, which has been given again and again, that it is impossible, in Committee, to challenge


the whole principle of a Bill which has passed Second Reading?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 5, page 2, and to insert:
(3) If it appears to the Minister of Agriculture that the public health is, or is likely to be, endangered by any act or default of a person who has applied to be or is registered as a dairy farmer, being an act or default committed in relation to the quality, storage or production of milk, a notice stating the place and time, not being less than seven days after the date of the service of the notice, on which the matter will be taken into consideration by the person appointed by that Minister and informing him that he may attend before such person with any witnesses whom he desires to call at the time and place mentioned to show cause why, for reasons specified in the notice, registration should not be refused or cancelled either generally or in respect of any specified premises.
(4) If a person on whom a notice is served under the preceding subsection fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the person appointed by the Minister as aforesaid, the Minister may refuse to register him as a dairy fanner or, as the case may be, cancel his registration and he shall forthwith give notice to him of his decision in the matter and shall, if so required by him, within fourteen days of his decision give to him within forty-eight hours a statement of the grounds on which it is based.
A person aggrieved by the decision of an authority under this section to refuse to register him or to cancel his registration may appeal to the county court judge of his district.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that a dairy farmer is not struck off, the register or refused registration solely because, in the opinion of the Minister, and that means in the opinion of his servants, the regulations will not be complied with, but that he can only be struck off or refused registration upon proof of some definite act or fault on his part. Secondly, the Amendment would enable the dairy farmer to appear himself, and with witnesses, before whoever is deciding his case. Thirdly, the Amendment institutes a right of appeal to a court which is independent and the decision of which will be final. The object of this Bill is to bring clean milk to the home. It is equally important that the dairy farmer as well as the dairyman should be clean in his methods of handling the milk, and therefore it seems to me there must be a common rule applying to both, and there ought to be the same rights of appeal in both cases. I shall, later, examine what are the rights of appeal in the case of the dairyman.
I would direct the attention of the Committee to this Clause 1 in order to explain how the Amendment comes in. Clause 1 deals with the dairy farmer, and the Schedule to the Bill with the dairyman. The Clause lays down that the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Agriculture, should, jointly, make Regulations, and that alters the old arrangement under which the Ministry of Health alone made Regulations. Subsection (2) of the Clause says that the Regulations made for the registration of dairies shall provide:
(a) for the registration by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of dairy farms and of persons carrying on, or proposing to carry on, the trade of a dairy farmer.
So far there is no objection; but the Clause goes on to provide
(b) for the refusal or cancellation of any such registration by that Minister if, in his opinion, the Regulations will not be or are not being complied with.
That, I feel, is going a great deal too far. There is no necessity to show any act or default, no breach of the regulations. If the Minister or any of his servants think that anyone will not comply with those regulations then, without taking any evidence and with no right of appeal, the Minister's minions may deprive a man of a substantial part of his livelihood. I would like to give the Committee an illustration of how that would work out in another field. If the Minister of Transport thought, in peace-time, that he should come to Parliament for a Bill to safeguard persons on the road he would be entitled, on the same principle, to say that he wanted powers which would provide for the refusal of, or the cancellation of, a driver's licence if, in his opinion, the road traffic regulations would not be complied with. We have reached an extraordinary stage if Ministers are to be allowed to take away the livelihood of an individual simply by saying that, in their opinion, that individual is likely to transgress the law. So far as I know, there is no precedent for that, and if there were 10 or 15 precedents, I should still say the principle was wrong and one to which the Committee ought not to agree. In the case of transport, a larger section of the community would be affected, and there would be a great deal of feeling in the country, but I believe the country feels strongly that a matter of principle is involved here and that we ought not to concede such a right to Ministers.
Let the Committee consider the powers which are now operated by the Ministry of Health. They are contained in the Schedule. They are of importance because the Ministry of Health has had some experience in dealing with these cases, and the fact that the Minister of Health does not want his powers amended is a clear indication that it is perfectly possible to act effectively with the powers which Parliament has already given. The Schedule says:
If it appears to an authority by whom dairymen are registered … other than the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that the public health is or is likely to be endangered by any act or default of a person who has applied to be or is so registered by the authority, being an act or default committed—
That shows that before any action can be taken there must be some definite wrongdoing or default on the part of the person whom it is proposed to strike off the register. The refusal to register or the cancellation of a registration must be based on something which the man has done which is capable of being proved. If the Committee follow out the scheme in the Schedule, they will find that where the Ministry or the local authority decides that a case should be raised there is an opportunity for the man, the dairyman, to appear and state his case and to bring witnesses; but under the terms of the present Clause that right is denied to the dairy farmer. One can state a case much more effectively with the help of witnesses than by merely making representations, which is the alternative offered in the Bill. Finally, there is a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That is the system and it has worked so well that the Minister of Health does not come forward with any suggested alteration. The Minister of Agriculture, on the other hand, for reasons which he will no doubt give to the Committee, finds that he must take power to act alone and that is the point which the Committee will do well to consider.
Under Clause 1 the Minister has to prove no act or default. The test is simply the opinion of his civil servants, who are thus put entirely above the law. Civil servants, as well as anyone else, are liable to be wrong. The civil servant can decide the case on his mere whim. He is not called upon to hear evidence. He may have a representation from the

dairy farmer, but he may have heard some other story, it may be from some farmer who has a grudge against that particular dairy farmer. There are all sorts of ways in which the view of the civil servant may be biased, and I do not think we as a Committee are entitled to allow any citizen to be placed in a position where his livelihood may be dependent upon the opinion of a civil servant. Why should we insist that an overt act must be proved in the case of the dairyman and not in the case of the dairy farmer? Clean milk is important to the community, but the surrender of the liberty of the individual is too great a price to pay for even clean milk. In view of what the Ministry of Health has done I do not think this Committee can afford to regard this Clause lightly and not give effect to the Amendment as it stands. I am not asking that the Amendment should necessarily be accepted in precisely this form, and it may be the Minister can think of some independent tribunal, but it seems to me that that independent tribunal ought to have the final decision. It seems to me that anything less than that would be to deprive the dairy farmer of his proper rights. On that point, I think the Committee should stand firm.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, I do think it is rather important to emphasise that this Amendment does not mean, in any sense, that there is any reason why we should not get milk as clean as possible.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I thought I had met the case by saying that the Ministry could get quite clean milk under the procedure laid down. Of course, it is perfectly possible to get clean milk and, indeed, I was going to end by saying that I thought there was no reason why the Minister could not meet the Committee on this point, and do it perfectly efficiently, and at the same time ensure clean milk. My right hon. Friend was brought up on dairy milk, as I was myself, and, judging from his appearance, I think he has done extraordinarily well. I am well aware that there is a natural and proper desire for clean milk, and I want to see clean milk, but I do not want to buy clean milk at the price


of the negation of what has always been considered fair play for the citizens of this country.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh North (Mr. Erskine-Hill). I do not want to cover ground already covered by him, but it seems to me absolutely indisputable that this Bill, as it now stands, will place the prospective dairy farmer, and the man who is a dairy farmer now, completely at the mercy of the Ministry. The prospective dairy farmer will be forbidden to carry on the occupation he desires, not because he is a producer of dirty milk—that can easily be proved by tests—but because, in the Minister's opinion, he will not keep such regulations as the Minister may choose to make in the future. One can envisage the sort of thing that will happen when some civil servant goes down to a farm, sees the farmer and gives him certain advice which the farmer, a man of independent mind and with experience, will not accept. The civil servant will then report to the Minister that, in his opinion, that farmer is so independent that he is not the sort of chap who is likely to keep the regulations which the Minister is likely to make. So, under this Bill, the Minister will have power to refuse to register that farmer and, in this land of liberty, he will be able to stop that man carrying on that occupation after the war, although nothing can be cited to indicate or prove that the milk which that man produces is dirty. The dairy farmer is completely at the mercy of the Minister. At any moment the Minister may decide that, in his opinion, a farmer will not keep the regulations or has not kept them. No proof is required and there is no security for the dairy farmer.
I wonder whether, if this Bill becomes law, anyone will engage in this precarious occupation of dairy farming subject to the Minister's whim. Indeed, if this Bill becomes law, I cannot help thinking that the Minister will get an entirely new title throughout the country at large. He will not only be known as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; he will also earn the title of "Dictator of Dairy Farmers." It is all very well for these powers to be held by a minister in war-time, but what we are concerned with in this Bill is whether

the powers are to exist in peace-time I regret that this issue should have arisen at this moment. It has not been forced on the Government by any group of back-benchers. It was brought up by the Government, and our responsibility in this matter is great. It may be that the National Farmers' Union supports the Bill, at any rate, as far as clean milk is concerned, but I am sure that farmers who are fully occupied at present will, when this comes to their attention, feel very strongly that they should not be placed in complete bondage to the Minister. I am certain that those who hope to engage in the farming industry on their return from overseas, will feel equally strongly about it.
May I say a little about the provision in the Bill as to representations being made to the Minister? If the Minister's opinion has been formed against a dairy farmer, is it likely that he will change that opinion? To err is human, and we were told last week by the Parliamentary Secretary that no form of outside tribunal can be so human as a Minister has shown himself to be. I am sorry to say that, so far as this erring about decisions is concerned, the Minister seems to have been inhuman, for the Parliamentary Secretary said that in no single instance had the Minister found it necessary to change a decision in regard to a farmer. If this Bill goes through in its present form, we may have a Parliamentary Secretary boasting that no representation has caused a Minister to change his opinion. I cannot see why we should have this terrific difference between dairies and dairy farmers. It will be difficult for the man who runs a dairy farm, and also has a dairy shop in a neighbouring town. If the milk which comes from his farm is not clean, he has no security, but if it comes from his shop then he has ample security. I do not know why this invidious distinction is drawn, because it is a fallacy to suppose that all contaminated milk is contaminated when it leaves the farm. I believe that a great deal of the contamination takes place after it leaves the farm, and I find no reason why the farmer should be treated any differently from the dairy man. Either the Minister of Health has not asked for all the powers that he ought to have—and I cannot believe that—or the Minister of Agri-


culture is asking for powers which are excessive. He cannot have it both ways.
That is all I propose to say in support of the case against the Bill as it now stands, on that matter. Now, I want to come to the terms of the Amendment, and I propose to deal with them quite shortly. The Amendment does not suggest an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. There may be an obvious argument against that, and it is for that reason that a county court judge was substituted for a court of summary jurisdiction, but I do not think that any supporters of this Amendment are wedded to the idea of the county court judge. It seems to me to be the right solution, but the Minister might be able to find another. One thing can be said about a county court judge—he would consider the matter without a jury and it could not be said he had an axe to grind. The whole question he would have to decide would be whether the milk was clean or not, but, if that solution does not appeal to the Minister, I suggest we must have an independent, impartial tribunal who will announce their decisions to the appellant and whose decisions will be final. We should not have that modern creation, which we have under Regulation 18B, of an advisory committee, even though it may be called an appeal tribunal, which hears the appellant, hears his witnesses, and then, behind closed doors, makes a report to the Minister which no-one sees and which the Minister is at complete liberty to ignore. That sort of tribunal would be complete eyewash and would leave the Minister still the dictator of dairy farming.
Under the Amendment, there would be an appeal from the decision of the person who is appointed to make the inquiry to the county court judge. It would not be an appeal from the Minister. We have had a similar provision, even if it was an appeal from the Minister, under the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and 25 per cent. of these appeals have been allowed by this independent tribunal. I cannot believe it possible that, if such an independent tribunal was appointed to deal with this matter, one would not find some percentage of appeals allowed. I do not know whether the Minister will be reluctant to accept this Amendment. If he is, it seems to me that that reluctance

must spring from fear that he may be shown to be wrong. I cannot conceive why it should be assumed that the Minister and his civil servants are the only persons capable of deciding whether regulations are kept or not, and whether the milk is clean. They are questions of fact. In my view it is nonsense to say that only the Minister is capable of deciding and even greater nonsense to say that we can only have clean milk, if we leave the decision on this matter to the Minister and his civil servants. I hope that the Committee will reject this vast advance, advocated by the Government, on the road to agricultural serfdom.

Major York: Although I am not wedded to the words of this Amendment and, indeed, I would oppose the introduction of the county court judge, yet I do support the principle that is indicated in the Amendment. In all matters affecting the agricultural industry where decisions have to be taken on the efficiency, or otherwise, of an agricultural holding or its occupier, it must be a point of English justice and freedom that a tribunal shall be set up to which cases can be referred.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member what tribunal he is suggesting?

Major York: The hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated my remarks. As I was saying I think the principle is necessary and, as regards the tribunal, I agree that the county court judge is, in fact, an independent tribunal, but I would not tie the Minister down to any particular form of tribunal. My own view is that if organisations connected with the industry were to produce a panel from which the Minister could select individuals, provided that those individuals were nominated by the Minister and given a definite period or term of years, that would adequately meet my point of view. I want an independent tribunal, but—

Mr. Turton: Would my hon. and gallant Friend say how he can describe a tribunal which is appointed by the man who is being appealed against, as an independent tribunal? I understand that he is proposing that an appeal from the Minister's decision should be dealt with by a body set up by the Minister. Would


he explain how he can describe such a body as an independent tribunal?

Major York: I think that interruption is a little tardy. After all, somebody has to appoint a tribunal, whether it is the county court judge or not. Whichever way you look at it, somebody has to appoint the tribunal and, therefore, I proposed that the Minister should appoint it. The great point about independent tribunals is that the members of the tribunals should have a complete independence from whatever organisation they are nominated, and, equally, complete independence from a Government Department. That, I concede, but that does not mean that the Minister is tied down in his selection of the members. The Committee should allow these independent tribunals to be set up, and the Minister to decide what type of tribunals they should be.

Mr. Petherick: The hon. and gallant Member suggests that independent tribunals should be set up, nominated by the Minister of Agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like to ask the hon. and Gallant Member what exactly he has in mind. After the board is set up, is the decision of the independent tribunal to be final, or will there be an appeal to the Minister on behalf of sanitary inspectors, or medical officers, and will his decision be final, or will the decision of the independent tribunal be final?

Major York: Any decision of the independent tribunal must, obviously, be final. I have in mind the case of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

Sir A. Southby: I support the Amendment. I suggest that the Committee would do well, to think very carefully, before they refuse this Amendment or pass the Bill in its present form. The one thing we are all agreed upon, however we may differ about the machinery, is that we all want to see clean milk, but it should be possible to obtain clean milk, without the Minster being the sole arbiter whether a man shall, or shall not, make his living in dairy farming. I imagine that it is almost unique for a provision in a Bill of this kind to make it possible for the Minister to say, beforehand, that a man shall not engage in a profession, in which he is making his living. If a man breaks a regulation, or is found to be unsuitable, then somebody should be able to prevent him

carrying on that trade in a manner which is not in the public interest, but to say that a man should be prevented from engaging in a particular occupation, merely on the ground that the Minister thinks he might not obey regulations, is surely going rather far, particularly when the man has no opportunity of appealing against that decision. That is a great injustice.
We are engaged, day by day, in increasing the control of the bureaucracy. We are making it more and more impossible for the independent man to carry on his business in his own way. It was said after the last war that we were going to build a land fit for heroes to live in, but, as I sit in this House and see Bill after Bill and regulation after regulation coming along, I sometimes wonder whether it will not take a hero to be able to live in this country after the war, if the planners and the bureaucrats have their way. I suggest that the Minister should think again about this. It should not be impossible to devise some means by which the Minister is not prosecutor, judge and jury in his own case, because that is what it comes to. There should be some opportunity for a man to appeal against a decision to the effect either that he is not to engage in dairy farming, or, alternatively, to appeal against the accusation that he is not carrying out his work properly. I suggest that, if the Minister will not accept the Amendment, he should indicate that he will, between now and the Report stage, find some form of words to meet the points which have been raised.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I want to appeal to the Minister and to suggest that this is not a wrecking Amendment. It is a helpful Amendment and there is no reason why it should not be accepted. We want clean milk, and we want justice done at the same time, and, if we can get both, why should we not have them? What we do not like is handing over complete powers to officials in an arbitrary manner. I do not believe that any body of hon. Members wants that. I do not see why the Minister should not give way on this occasion. The Amendment does not interfere with or injure the Bill, but it will enable the Minister to secure the cooperation of the people, who will otherwise have a feeling of soreness and a feeling that they are being bullied. We have


seen the same kind of thing arising in the war agricultural executive committees. When the committee is good, everything works splendidly, but, if the committee is composed of unsuitable people, all sorts of abuses arise. For the Minister to say that he is responsible to this House is no answer, because there is no time to raise all these cases. Such cases are very often raised when it is too late, or when we are up against a time limit, and the same thing will happen here, when injustice is done. I appeal to the Minister not to get hon. Members' backs up in the Committee, as he has done in the past. He will find, if he goes through with this Amendment, that he will create a feeling of soreness.

Mr. Gallacher: This question of clean milk is of vital importance to the people of this country. The reports we have read about health and infantile mortality indicate that we cannot act too strongly or readily in getting clean milk. I consider that this is a wrecking Amendment. I am glad to see that some Tories are now talking about "dragooning and bullying." When it is a question of the working classes, or the masses of the people, there is never anything of that. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) said that we were promised after the last war, a wonderful country with homes for heroes, but what did we get? Nothing but unemployment and starvation, because, immediately the war was over, the hon. and gallant Member and his colleagues removed control and left the country at the mercy of all kinds of ravishers.

The Chairman: We cannot go into the past.

Mr. Gallacher: I think one hon. Member was appalled at the suggestion that the Minister should appoint a tribunal and said that such a tribunal could never be an independent tribunal. When the Minister appointed the Unemployment Board, did any hon. Members on the other side get agitated about it?

Sir E. Grigg: To what tribunal, appointed by the Minister, is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. Gallacher: I am talking about the Unemployment Assistance Board. [Interruption.]

Sir A. Southby: You will not get clean milk from that.

Mr. Gallacher: It was the lives of millions of people of this country that were involved, and not one hon. Member on the other side objected to those millions of people being placed under a board appointed by a Minister.

Captain Cobb: On a point of Order. Is there any reason why we should not discuss the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is getting a little wide of the mark, but I understand he is giving an illustration.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Did not the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, bring in the Minister of Pensions as an illustration?

Mr. Gallacher: It was a very important and apt illustration. Hon. Members are making objections to a tribunal appointed by the Minister to look after clean milk.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not in the least object to the hon. Member's illustration, which is a very good one, but to what tribunal to deal with the question of milk, which could be appointed by the Minister, is the hon. Member now referring?

Sir A. Southby: There is no such tribunal.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not referring to anything that is in the Bill. [Interruption.] This has arisen out of the Amendment, which proposes a tribunal, and, in the course of the discussion, several hon. Members have vigorously opposed a tribunal appointed by the Minister. If hon. Members would pay attention to what is going on in the Committee, they would not get into such hopeless confusion. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member who supported the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: Can the hon. Member explain whether he regards such a tribunal as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York) as an independent tribunal?

Mr. Gallacher: I am not particularly interested in tribunals, because I am against the Amendment. I am quite agreeable that the Minister should make certain that good regulations are pre-


pared, and that those good regulations are kept, and so, the hon. Member who supported the Amendment is deliberately trying to deceive the people when he says that you cannot get clean milk through the dictatorship of the Minister. Nobody is suggesting that, but you can get clean milk—

Colonel Greenwell: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member, of attempting to deceive?

The Chairman: The remark is not strictly in Order but I do not think we need be so thin-skinned.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not see how I can be out of Order in talking of deception in connection with the Tories. That is their normal practice. It is not a question of getting pure milk through the dictatorship of the Minister, but through good regulations, and through the Minister seeing that those good regulations are complied with.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I never said, I am sure, anything about getting pure milk from the dictator.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member said that you cannot get pure milk through the dictatorship of the Minister. I know what the hon. Member said, and I do not see why he wants to dodge away when he is brought up against it. He also said that it was not always these dairy farmers who are to blame. In my early days, I started work with a dairy farmer. There have been very big changes since that time. At that time it was terrible. I do not know how some of us happen to be alive to-day when we consider the condition of dairy farming in the early days. There have, as I say, been great changes since then, but there are still dairy farms to which, once regulations were drawn up, the Minister could not in any circumstances give a certificate to the owner, because of the hopeless condition of the farm. The only condition under which the Minister could give a certificate, would be if there was complete rebuilding, or removal to some other and more suitable place. I know of places of that kind myself. The hon. Member said that it is not just the farmer who is to blame, but often the dairyman. He should argue that out with the mover of the Amendment, who is so concerned about the small man.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member kindly confine himself to the Amendment, which deals with the question of registration and the method by which registration shall be refused or cancelled?

Mr. Gallacher: I was answering the argument of the hon. Member opposite, who wants to throw the blame on the small man. It is no use his nodding his head, because he said that it was not only the dairy farmer who is to blame, but very often the dairyman. I am not going to join with him in throwing the blame on to the small man. I only wish that lie would take it up with the mover of the Amendment, when he accuses the small man of selling impure milk. The hon. Member certainly cannot accuse the Co-operative movement of selling impure milk, because they serve the very best. I am in favour of the Minister being given the fullest powers, as this is such a vital matter in the interests of the people of this country. I believe that the Amendment is intended as a blocking or wrecking Amendment. The Minister should take power to prepare good regulations, and he should have the power to see that those regulations are complied with.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: if one could look at these proceedings with philosophical detachment, one might feel that the opposition to the Minister is strong presumptive evidence that he is about right. That is how I look at it. If we were dealing with something else, say wine, we would be hilarious about it and have some great fun, but this is a very serious subject. When we gave a Second Reading to the Bill we entrusted the Minister with the new task of ensuring that the women and children—men do not seem much interested in milk—of our country should have a pure and abundant supply of milk. We agreed to that, and now that we come to the details of how to ensure that it is both pure and abundant, we hear all this talk about having some other authority than that which the Minister proposes. It seems to be rather unreal. The procedure under the Bill is simple and straightforward. Any farmer can understand it, and know why it is there and what he has to do. But this cumbersome and elaborate Amendment is rather frightening and will involve a lot of time and legal procedure and expense, if substituted for the Minister's own provision. If these matters


were to go to a legal court, no person sitting in judgment could very well make sure of the facts told to him verbally in the court. He would have to take the court down to the farm, and see for himself. The whole reason for this provision is that the Minister may see that no one goes into this business, or stays in it, who is not fit for the purpose for which the Bill is intended.
One of the first necessities of dairy farming is an abundant supply of good water. If a farm is being run on dirty water taken from some pond or ditch, the Minister will be right in saying, "This is not good enough and the people in London ought to have something better than you provide. You have not got the first essential—an abundance of clean water." We know that the Minister is to arrange to supply water, but until he does so, it is wise to say to such a person, "You cannot go on with that milk business." If anyone wants to go into dairy farming the Minister will be able to say, "Have you proper facilities? If you have not, I cannot register you." He will have competent men working for him to ensure that he does the right thing by the public.
I deplore the fact that a nasty attack has been made on the Civil Service of this country. From my long experience of civil servants and the working of our own country, I believe the country owes as much to its civil servants as to any element in the community. We are dependent for our life and liberty on the great services of our Army, Navy and Air Force, but the day-to-day working of our country depends upon the civil servants, and I do not know of any in whom one cannot place complete confidence. Therefore, to say that the farmer will be the subject of the mere whim or the personal likes or dislikes of a civil servant, is a very nasty aspersion and entirely unwarranted. No civil servant, no well-qualified veterinary surgeon or sanitary inspector, who goes to see if the dairy farmer is running his business satisfactorily, acts on a mere whim or on his own likes or dislikes, but on the evidence before him in looking at the place. The person going to the farm will be a man of first-class qualifications, and high probity, and fully competent to decide whether there should be registration or not.

Mr. Turton: Will he be qualified as a veterinary surgeon or as a sanitary inspector?

Mr. Walkden: As I understood from the Debate previously, he will have abundant qualifications whether he be veterinary surgeon or sanitary inspector. The veterinary surgeon might be necessary to advise on the health and condition of the herd, which is of primary importance. I remember seeing a herd in Copenhagen, which had been reared by the Transport Workers' Union—as the result of a strike of dairymen—in which they would not have an animal which was not immune from disease. They had a marvellous herd and doctors always arranged for milk to be got from them for patients. We want to reach that standard here and eliminate dirty farms and dairy businesses. The Bill will work fairly, I am sure. Assuming that there is a case that is held to be unfair, cannot the dairyman find out his M.P., who can go and contact the Minister? We all know that he can. Hon. Members do this themselves. The man has, through his M.P., an appeal to the High Court of Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does the hon. Member always get justice from the Executive?

Mr. Walkden: I have had no injustice myself. It does amaze me that "these gentlemen of England," who oppose the Minister, should be so concerned about the poor farmer being at the mercy of the Minister. Is not every tenant farmer in this country at the mercy of the landowner? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can a tenant farmer come to this House to ask a Member to take up his case? Of course he cannot. I speak feelingly on this matter. This is a very fair analogy. My grandfather was a farmer in Wiltshire and he was ruined by high rents. He wanted a reduction.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: In what year was that?

Mr. Walkden: I am 70, and so the hon. and gallant Member can work it out for himself.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Things have changed since then.

Mr. Walkden: When my grandfather went bankrupt as a result of the high


rents, the farm was let to another man at a reduced rent of £80 a year. That is a fair sample of landlordism and how it works. I do not say that it is all like that; some landlords are very considerate and honourable men. But if I were a farmer I would sooner trust myself to the Minister and his staff than to any individual landowner. Therefore, we support the Minister in this matter, and if there is a Division we shall be prepared to support the Government.

Major Sir George Davies: The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) seems to have approached the matter with less clarity of mind than he generally shows in Debate. The matter at issue is not a question of whether or not dairy farmers are producing clean milk. Every one of us who has personal and close access to the dairying industry in various parts of the country sees certain conditions in certain dairies that appal us, and we are at one in wishing to raise the standard of milk. If I thought for a moment that this provision we are debating, had anything to do with the production of pure milk in this country, I would support it wholeheartedly. The real point is this. Is the application of this very severe power of controlling the licensing of the registration, and, therefore, the life industry of the individual, to be decided as a matter of fact or opinion? It is idle to say that you cannot get a judgment on facts because a law court is not coming down to the farm and going over the premises of the dairy farmer. You might as well apply that to any offence against the law. It has no bearing whatever.
This matter divides itself into two points—one is the opinion of the Minister on a matter of fact, of whether a dairy farmer has or has not committed an offence, and the other is whether, at some unspecified future time, he will, or will not, commit an offence. These two linked but different issues, have to be decided by the opinion of one man, even if that one man be my right hon. Friend the Minister, in whom I have the utmost confidence, and that I believe is contrary to the best interests of the public. Therefore, the Amendment does not seek to raise or to lower the standard of what should be the production of pure milk. We would all support the raising of the standard. I have an idea at the back of

my own mind that some day we shall be compelled to institute pasteurised milk throughout the country. It is a vexed question, but I believe we shall be driven to it. At the same time nobody in his senses wants to do anything to encourage, in any way, the continued production of impure milk, or to lower the already too low standard that we have to-day.
But that is not the issue before us now. It is the question first, that if that dairy farmer has offended, that offence should be capable of definite proof before a court, or some organisation separate from the Minister, who is entitled to his opinion but whose opinion should not be a final, overriding decision. If it applies to the cases in which an offence has or has not been committed in the past, how much more must it apply to a hypothetical case which may or may not arise in the future? That is the real point at issue. If the Minister can meet us on this real point of issue then I believe he will have a smooth passage for a Bill which generally speaking has the support of all. It raises a matter of grave principle, which I hope he will be able to clarify before this Debate comes to an end.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that in the case of the unemployed—

The Chairman: That question really does not arise.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask a question then? Is it not the case that, in other matters, the issue is not whether it is a decision of the Minister or of a board; it is the character of the regulations that is the important thing?

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I am a little puzzled about this Amendment because it does not seem to me to meet the case which, I think, hon. Members have in mind and with which I, myself, have a lot of sympathy. As far as I can see, what it provides is simply that the person who, it may be, is about to have his living taken away from him, because his premises or methods of milk production are unsuitable, shall have a right to appear at some specified place before the Ministry's inspector brings witnesses. If, further, he is still unsatisfied, he can appeal to the county court judge. As far as the first point is concerned, I am quite sure that before a


licence to sell milk is taken from a person, the inspectorate of the Minister will discuss the matter very fully with the dairy farmer concerned, and I do not think this statutory right to appear before the inspector helps the dairy farmer very greatly.
I do not think this idea of taking it to the county court judge meets the case either. A county court judge can decide on matters of law, but the man concerned will be there because the premises in which he milked his cows are unsuitable, because they have not enough windows, or the shape or size of them is wrong, or because, on analysis of his milk on several occasions, it has turned out to be dirty, or because his cattle are diseased. These are matters that can be dealt with by Regulation but they are not really matters for county court judges to decide. These are technical matters dealing with the business of producing milk, and the farmer concerned will probably say that he is going to make alterations, that he will mend his ways about his milk not being clean, that he is going to clear up the disease among his cattle. It is a matter of judgment, whether he is really going to do these things, whether his record suggests that he will do them, and I am sure that the Minister's inspectors will give reasonable latitude.
However, I do agree that the person ought to have an appeal beyond one individual civil servant, and I hope I may be allowed to suggest—in spite of the fact that I have an Amendment down later suggesting a rather different thing—that the right of appeal is an appeal to his equals, to people who understand the business, to other dairy farmers, to people who are competent to make a judgment as to whether the inspector is being reasonable or whether the farmer is doing his best under difficult circumstances. Therefore, I do not feel that this Amendment meets the very real case. I have very great sympathy with the tenant farmers who are not responsible for their buildings, for instance, and may be deprived of their living because their landlords will not make the improvement. To the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) may I point out that since his grandfather farmed, a certain amount has happened. Since then, and it is a long time ago, we have had a Liberal Govern-

ment—[An HON. MEMBER: "And war ever since."] The security of the tenant farmers—

Mr. McEntee: That is ancient history too. [An HON. MEMBER: "So are the Ten Commandments."

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Are we allowed in a Debate on milk, to discuss the resurrection of the dead?

Mr. Roberts: I would only point out that the dead to-day, so far as effective control is concerned, are the landlords of this country. They are dead, because of those Liberal Acts which were passed—

Mr. A. Walkden: Could the hon. Member tell me whether a landowner still has the right to require a tenant to leave his farm if he thinks fit?

Mr. Roberts: They can pay the tenant very handsomely to go away but, in fact, they very seldom do it. He has an appeal in those circumstances to a county committee which very rarely nowadays gives a verdict in favour of the landowner.

Mr. A. Walkden: Only in respect of the value of improvements he may have made.

Mr. Roberts: No, no. This is really out of Order, but the tenant to-day has almost complete security against the landlord—not against the Government, who can turn him out at a moment's notice. The landlord cannot do that. I think there was a case made on the Second Reading for some sort of appeal to local farmers, and that is the view of those concerned in the organisation of the industry. It is, I understand, the view of the Milk Marketing Board who, while they are very anxious to improve the standard and quality of milk production and not opposed to this Bill, are, after all, a purchasers' organisation, representing the producer. They have a right, therefore, to express their opinions. The National Farmers' Union take the same view, I understand. At a meeting in my county only a week or ten days ago, I was instructed to support this Bill, provided some appeal for a local body of persons could be inserted in the Bill. I think it would be of value to insert that right of appeal into this Bill, and it would be very much better to do that, than to lay down in this Amendment rather detailed proce-


dure which will not, in fact, ensure the farmer concerned the most sympathetic hearing of his case.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Would my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear whether this local body would be appointed by the Minister, or appointed impartially not by the Minister? It is a very important point.

Mr. Roberts: I am referring to a meeting of the county executive of the National Farmers' Union, and that point was not fully discussed so far as I remember, so that anything I would say to the hon. and gallant Member is only my own view about that. My view is that a panel should be appointed of dairy farmers and representatives of the local authorities as well—special dairy farmers, who would be naturally predisposed to treat the farmers sympathetically whilst anxious to increase the quality of the milk.
The hon. Member for South Bristol said it was unnecessary because the person concerned could apply to his Member of Parliament. Of course he can, and he will, and he would be able to apply to his local appeal tribunal, but Members of Parliament do not really know sufficiently the details of every cowshed in their constituencies and they can only take secondhand opinions on these matters. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give us some assurance on this subject before passing this Amendment. As I say, I do not think it deals with the real difficulty. We want to safeguard the liberty of the individual dairy farmer to continue in the business in which he is making his living. To do so, I think, it is far better to set up a local appeal committee than to lay down this rather difficult, unsuitable procedure.

Mr. Turton: As I understand, Mr. Williams, that you do not intend to call the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends on Clause 1, page 2, line to leave out "the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries," and to insert "a court of summary jurisdiction," it might be convenient on this Amendment to discuss that one also, as it deals with a similar point.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Yes.

Mr. Turton: I find myself rather in disagreement with my hon. Friend the

Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) because I do not think he has emphasised what the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) stressed as so important, the question of clean milk. I, personally, do not think that you can give an appeal on the matter of public health from the decision of the Minister of Agriculture to a decision of a panel of seven dairy farmers, appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. This question of milk affects the whole country. Take the slaughter houses as an example. If it is decided that a slaughter house is insanitary or ill-constructed, you do not appeal from that decision to a panel of seven butchers; indeed, you do not appeal from that to the Minister of Agriculture. You appeal from the decision of a body looking after the health of the country to the court of summary jurisdiction, for they represent the people.
They are justices of the peace, appointed by the Lord Chancellor to administer justice fairly and according to the law. With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, that should be the cure for this problem. You cannot have and the country, with the exception of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), will not tolerate, decisions given by a Minister of the Crown, of whatever party, against which there is no right of appeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear a cheer from the Socialist benches, and I want to find out what is their position. I cannot believe that any member of that party would tolerate a Minister saying, "This cow-barn is not as I would like it," and yet refusing any appeal against his decision.

Mr. Gallacher: This side of the Committee has never objected to a Minister having power or giving power to a body from which there is no appeal. What this side has objected to is the character of the regulations which have been introduced. If the regulations are good then we do not mind them.

Mr. Turton: I am grateful for that explanation from your party—the Socialist Party.

Mr. George Griffiths: That is a slander on the Labour Party, and I object to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) saying that. He ought to know better.

The Deputy-Chairman: The only possible slander is that the hon. Member said, "Your party," which means that he was addressing me

Mr. Turton: I withdraw and apologise, Mr. Williams. I asked Members of the Committee who represent the Socialist Party whether they agreed with my dictum, that their party did not agree with the idea that a Minister should take away a man's livelihood without any right of appeal, and I was answered by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. A. Walkden: We take the view that a Minister is answerable to this House. Parliament decides everything. When a Minister draws up regulations they are laid before Parliament, and we have confidence in this procedure.

Sir E. Grigg: Does the hon. Member believe that there is no necessity whatever for a judiciary, independent of the Executive? Has he abandoned that principle?

Mr. Turton: It seems that the Socialist Party do not believe that there should be an appeal to the court from the decision of a Minister. Is it the case that in the future, when we are discussing other matters, we shall find the Socialist Party abolishing the whole right of appeal to the courts? If a man is a driver of a commercial vehicle and his licence is taken away he has, at present, an appeal to the court, but if we are to have this business of rule by Ministers his licence will be determined solely by the Minister of Transport. We want to be very careful in this matter, because milk is not purely a question of agriculture. I represent an agricultural constituency and farm myself, but clean milk is a public question, one with which the Ministry of Health is concerned, and not solely the Ministry of Agriculture. Let us be wary lest the House and the nation consider any question of appeal to seven dairymen, nominated by the Minister of Agriculture. I say that in the interest of public health. The great advantage of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend is in the words:
if it appears … that the public health is, or is likely to be, endangered …
There is not a word in the Clause, as drafted, that gives any guidance as to public health and to milk.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Does the hon. Member envisage that appeal will be to a county court judge as to whether proper

notices have been served, or legal processes have been carried out properly, or that milk has been cleaned? Is the judge to decide whether the milk was clean, or whether the proper procedure has been carried out?

Mr. Turton: If my hon. Friend had read not only the Bill, but the Measure to which this Bill is an Amendment, he would have been able to answer his own question. I refer to the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, Sections 20 and 21 of which give the groundwork on which these licences, registrations, can be refused Clearly, the ground on which an appeal will rest will relate to the ground on which the Minister has refused to register the licence. The question of appeal is, strangely enough, no new thing. There are appeals to-day to courts of summary jurisdiction against decisions of local authorities on these very grounds. The hon. Member has expressed surprise about the wording of the Amendment we are discussing, but those words are taken exactly from the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. He cannot have read that Act and before he makes any suggestions later about his seven wise dairymen, I hope he will first see how the present administration is working. If courts of summary jurisdiction are capable of adjudicating on a decision by local authorities, surely they are suitable bodies to adjudicate on decisions by the Minister of Agriculture. Why is the Minister of Agriculture afraid to have an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction? If we pass this Bill without this Amendment we shall be in a very curious situation. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, dairy farmers will have no right of appeal at all if their registration is refused by the Minister of Agriculture, yet under Clause 3 any other man who has his registration refused by anybody else, the Ministry of Health or anybody except the Minister of Agriculture, will have the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. You will create a deep and harsh anomaly unless you give this right of appeal, I believe, to a court of summary jurisdiction.
May I now try to deal with some of the points put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill)? He suggested a county court judge as the proper person to hear the appeal. I beg him to reconsider that view. In my view, county court judges and courts have a great future in this


country, and I want them to have a higher limit of work, to deal with larger amounts rather than to add to the duties of their work. At present they are overworked, unfortunately chiefly through judgment summonses, which I think should be taken from them. What we ought to do is to give them more High Court work, and enable what is the poor man's court to be extended to a wider area of operations. If you are to give an appeal against all regulations—and there should be an appeal against most of them—you will make their work very arduous. The right court is the court of summary jurisdiction. If hon. Members have no trust in any court of summary jurisdiction their complaint is with the Lord Chancellor. A court of summary jurisdiction, or a stipendiary court, is the court to deal with these matters. I do not think you can do better than have such a court.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) suggested an independent tribunal. The only drawback to that suggestion was that the tribunal he described was not independent, but I do not want to cross swords with him on that. There is now a recent innovation by the Government, the independent tribunals for war pensions appeals, provided by the Lord Chancellor. If the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, does not like the idea of an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction I, personally, would be quite content with an appeal tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That would be comparable with the pensions appeal tribunal, it would be an independent tribunal and it would give satisfaction. However keen we are on clean milk let us ensure that justice is done to the man who has his job endangered owing to a Ministerial decision. I have the greatest confidence in civil servants, just like the hon. Member for South Bristol, but I am quite sure—and my years in Parliament have corroborated my view—that they sometimes make mistakes. It is because a man sometimes errs, that you give the right of appeal. Let us give this justice by giving independent tribunals, preferably courts of summary jurisdiction, but if not an independent tribunal then an appeal tribunal not appointed by the Minister but by the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Loverseed: I rise to support the Amendment which is not, as

some hon. Members have attempted to make it, a party question but a question of elementary justice. I quite agree with some of the irrelevant remarks of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) about the dragooning of the working class, but surely that should not deter us from seeking justice for every other class which is a victim of injustice. We must have clean milk, and in order to raise the standard to achieve that, the Minister must be given certain powers. But those powers must be used with the greatest discretion; safeguards must be introduced to prevent any abuses. Last Thursday I raised on the Adjournment the question of appeals from the decisions of county war agricultural executive committees. Despite assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary, that all farmers have a right of appeal to an independent land commissioner, he nevertheless admitted that the commissioner was, at the same time, paid by the Minister of Agriculture and could not, therefore, be regarded as independent. Despite all assurances, most Members of the Committee will agree that there have been abuses of these powers of these committees and that if we allow this Bill to go through, without this Amendment, there will be abuses under this Bill as well. On this point I think we should fight. The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) raised the question of the right of farmers to appeal to their Members of Parliament, but is that really satisfactory? Many of us have raised these cases with the Minister and we get a reply in many cases which does nothing more than pull the wool over our eyes. We ask a question, and get another unsatisfactory reply, and then raise it on the Adjournment. There is no finality to it and it is allowed to rest. That is not a satisfactory appeal in the last resort. I beg the Minister to consider setting up independent appeal tribunals to ensure that the same thing does not happen to other dairy farmers as has happened to those dispossessed by the county agricultural committees.

Mr. Hutchinson: The argument developed by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Walkden) seems to me to lead us into a very dangerous and remarkable position. His argument was that the procedure under this Bill is an expeditious and simple means of deter-


mining the rights of persons affected by the Bill, and that therefore it was right. If you substitute the decision of an administrative officer for an appeal to a judicial tribunal you do, of course, provide a more expeditious and more simple form of procedure. But is such a procedure satisfactory? And is it likely to result in justice? That is really the question we have to consider. If this House were to pass an Act of Parliament which said that, if a policeman stopped a driver in the street and charged him with committing an offence, the policeman should also be the person who should try him and inflict a fine, that would be a simplified and expeditious form of procedure. But would it be satisfactory to the people of the country, who are accustomed to seek their rights in a court of justice? That is precisely the thing that the Minister proposes to do in this Bill. We are not dealing here with emergency legislation. We are dealing with a Bill which will be the law of this country long after the period has passed when we have to accept modifications of our accustomed constitutional mode of determining disputes.
This Bill will affect the livelihood of everyone who engages in the occupation of a dairy farmer, not for the period of the war but for an indefinite period. It will be a permanent part of our law. It would be a most disastrous thing if we accepted such a form of procedure as is proposed. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary last week when he defended the proceedings of the county war agricultural committees. I felt then precisely the same misgivings which I felt to-day when I listened to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Bristol. The Parliamentary Secretary claimed it was a satisfactory way of determining a judicial question that a person aggrieved should have recourse to the Minister, because the Minister was answerable to the House. This misconception of the constitutional law of the country seems to be becoming very firmly embedded in the minds of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that, as the result of this Debate, we shall be able to persuade them to adopt a form of procedure more in accord with the constitutional usage of the country.
On the question of whether there should be an independent tribunal, I am not entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend

the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The first thing is to ensure that the tribunal is really independent. Independent tribunals are set up under a number of Acts of Parliament in a form which is now quite familiar. There is a, Chairman appointed from a panel selected by the Lord Chancellor. That is an entirely different thing from a panel selected by the administrative Minister. The Lord Chancellor is the authority whose duty it is to make judicial appointments. The Minister is the authority whose duty it is to carry out the administration of a department. Those are entirely different things. It is very common under the form of independent tribunal to which I have just referred to associate the independent chairman with a panel of persons who may be regarded as experts, and who are sometimes appointed by the administrating Minister. I should be ready to accept as satisfactory such a tribunal, provided that there is an independent chairman, not appointed by the administrative Minister.
The hon. Member for South Bristol was critical of the Amendment and said that the Bill was more likely to secure a satisfactory supply of clean milk. He said that this was an involved Amendment. But this Amendment follows almost exactly the procedure applied by the Act of 1938 and, as far as I am aware, that has been effective in securing a supply of clean milk. It is no criticism of the Amendment to say that it is involved merely because it adopts the procedure which is at present the law for dealing with another aspect of precisely the same question. I should have thought that, in fact, the procedure proposed in the Amendment was more likely to be effective in securing a supply of clean milk than that proposed in the Bill. The Bill proposes that the Minister should be entitled to make Regulations and that if they are not complied with, he should be entitled to refuse or to cancel registration. The Amendment proposes that, if it appears to Minister that the public health is, or is likely to be, endangered by any act or default of the person who has applied to be registered, he may be refused registration.
However carefully Regulations are drawn, ingenious persons will find a way of getting round them. If that happens under the Bill, the Minister is powerless until he has made a new Regulation. But


under the Amendment, that is not the case at If a person is doing anything that is likely to endanger the public health he can be refused registration. Then he has first of all the right to appear before the official whose decision he desires to challenge and state his case with witnesses. If he is not satisfied, he can go to a court of summary jurisdiction. But the Amendment proposes a form of procedure by which, if it is found that the supply of milk with which the person is dealing is not clean, the registration may be challenged on that ground alone. It is not necessary for the Minister or anyone else to show that what he has done infringes some Regulation. I should have thought the Amendment gives a much more satisfactory assurance of a supply of clean milk.

Mr. Tinker: Does not paragraph (b) deal with that?

Mr. Hutchinson: My point was that under the Bill the registration can only be cancelled if there is an infringement of the regulations and that it is often possible to find a means of getting round regulations. If that happens, the Minister can do nothing until he has made a new regulation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is going to meet us and will recognise that it is not satisfactory to the Committee or to the public or to anybody that a tradesman's livelihood should be made subject to the decision of a purely administrative officer, without the right to go to a court of law, with his witnesses, and be permitted to state his case. It matters not whether the tribunal is a court of summary jurisdiction or a county court, or some other tribunal. Even the question of a clean milk supply is really a secondary question, vital though it may be. The fundamental question here concerns the liberties of British citizens.

Mr. Furness: The number of dairy farmers and cowkeepers in my constituency is very limited, but I have ascertained that there are some. The real point in this matter is not one which concerns only dairy farmers and cowkeepers. It is not confined even to the question of clean milk. It concerns townsmen and countrymen alike. There is raised in this Amendment an issue which seems to go to the root of everything for which we, the Commons of Great Britain in Parliament

assembled, are really elected to protect. As far as I, a Private Member, am able to judge, the Minister of Agriculture has done a wonderful job of work, but if I may say so to him, this really will not do. If this Bill contained provisions by which the Minister could fine people who broke the Regulations, or send them to prison for six months, or flog them or treat them in some other way, everybody would be up in arms and say that it was entirely wrong and that these things could only be done by a court of law. But to take away a man's livelihood is far worse than any term of imprisonment.
This seems to be the beginning of something which I regard myself as under a pledge to oppose. A man is not to be allowed to start a business unless the Minister grants a licence, and he can be put out of business if his licence is withdrawn. Here is a state of affairs which can be extended, if we pass it now, to other industries. How nice for those who, like myself, are engaged, say, in shipbuilding if nobody can go into the industry without getting a licence. We shall then extend it to shopkeeping and to this activity and that, and we shall find ourselves pretty quickly landed into the corporate State, which Heaven forbid that we in this country will ever come to.
Therefore, I say again to the Minister that this will not do. I say it with friendliness and as one who believes that inspection of cowhouses and dairies is a matter which the Minister can do better than the local authorities. I say, however, that there should be some appeal from his decision so that a man can go into court and state his case. If we are going to take a line that the Minister may do it and that if he does anything which is unjust, then the local Member can be badgered to raise the matter in the House, we might as well say that a man can be fined by a Minister for being drunk or committing any offence, and that if something unjust is done the local Member can raise it in this House. This matter is wrapped up in a small compass and under a small heading in this Bill, but it is really a big issue and we must pause and consider very carefully before we allow it to go through.

Mr. Petherick: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will feel really happy as a result of the course of this Debate. I believe


that the country is getting more and more angry about this form of legislation. We have had considerable Debates in the House on delegated legislation and the giving of excessive powers to Ministers. The Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill showed clearly that opinion ran pretty high on the authoritarian powers that were being given to the Minister of Agriculture. Several of my hon. Friends on the Labour benches spoke strongly against the Bill. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dabble), the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. C. White), the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters), the hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths), the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie), in addition to many hon. Members on this side, gave utterance to their considerable alarm at the tenor of the Bill. Everybody is in agreement that we want cleaner milk, but we are divided on the methods by which we should obtain it. The Amendment is, in my opinion, a good Amendment, and I shall vote for it if it goes to a Division, as I trust it will. There are one or two minor aspects of it which I am not very fond of, but it is an immense improvement on the Bill as it stands.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. Roberts) has an Amendment to which he referred in his speech which will, I hope, be called, but I do not think it is nearly satisfactory enough. As I understand it, he proposes merely an advisory committee nominated by the Minister, which will hear the case and then advise the Minister one way or the other. The final decision is still with the Minister—the Minister who has nominated the advisory committee and against one of whose servants the person aggrieved is appealing. Can that possibly be claimed to be an impartial tribunal? What we want, and what we must continue to press for in this Bill and any other similar legislation, is an appeal by a man whose livelihood is endangered to a court of justice. Whether it be a court of summary jurisdiction or a county court I am not ready at the moment to argue, although the case for the county court has been very well put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). It is to the whole principle of removing a man's source of livelihood or refusing to allow him to con-

tinue to earn his living without an appeal that we object. I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) supporting this Bill in lively fashion because Communism, Fascism and Nazism have this in common that they give completely authoritarian powers to the Government. That seems to me no reason why the Government, who are heavily engaged in fighting at least two forms of that kind of oppression, should now lend themselves to a sort of milk and water policy of the same kind.
We must oppose that as bitterly as we can, because the whole liberties of the people of England are bound up with the taking of a firm stand against such authoritarian legislation. Only two hon. Members spoke wholly in favour of the Clause. One was the hon. Member for West Fife and the other was my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden). I was shocked to hear him because he is a perfectly sound democrat, and we all respect his views very much. I can only think he got the constitutional procedure all wrong. He, rightly, paid a high tribute to the impartiality and integrity of the civil servant. He said that if a civil servant went down to examine a case, and reported that it was a bad case, and action was taken, we could be pretty sure that everything was all right. But civil servants can make mistakes the same as anybody else, and when a civil servant makes a mistake it is the King's Government making a mistake, and when the King's Government make a mistake, the ordinary recourse is a court of law.

Mr. A. Walkden: Is my hon. Friend aware that a common and universal characteristic of civil servants is that they will not do anything until they are quite sure that they are quite right?

Mr. Petheriek: I would only ask my hon. Friend to examine the Questions in HANSARD in only the last six months, and he will find that mistakes have been made. Has he never written to a Minister, and complained of some action that his civil servants have taken?

Mr. A. Walkden: I always get a very nice reply.

Mr. Petheriek: I am grateful for that interruption. A nice reply is not enough. I, too, can give a nice reply sometimes,


but nobody would feel very happy if a man who wished to continue in business as a dairy farmer, and was suddenly refused registration, was not allowed to appeal and if he got only a nice reply. Sometimes, as will happen in the best organisations and under the best Governments, Ministers misuse their powers—

Mr. A. Walkden: I have had replies which explained errors and described rectifications and which were not just negatively nice replies.

Mr. Petherick: Has not my hon. Friend ever had a pension case turned down, when he has not been satisfied with the result? Of course he has. He need not argue that. The suggestion that has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and by one of his supporters was that it was all right as long as Parliament was here, and that if there was any injustice done, Parliament could always take up the case. It is very difficult to take up an individual case, and if there are masses of individual cases it is still more difficult. We have only a certain number of occasions on which we can discuss the work of the Minister of Agriculture, and how can we discuss policy in a Ministry of Agriculture Debate if the whole time is taken up by raising matters which ought to be dealt with by the ordinary course of the law of the land? I cannot possibly support the Minister in this matter. I hope that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division, and I trust the result of it will show that this Committee will not tolerate in the future this form of legislation, which is an infringement of the liberty of the subject.

Sir E. Grigg: I have been a frequenter of the Debates in this House for a much longer period than I like to remember—over 40 years—and I have been a Member of it with one gap, when I was serving abroad, for over 20 years, and I am bound to say that never in that time could I have conceived it possible for the British Government to introduce a Bill containing a Clause of this character. I have never been so horrified in, my life as I was when I read the first Clause of the Bill. I dismiss quite frankly and with great respect as unworthy, the suggestion which has come from some Members opposite that this is, in any sense, a class issue. Some Members have suggested that this is the

old issue of landlord and tenant, and that we are discussing something in which the gentlemen of England are standing against the rest. All my friends are with me in this, that we are concerned with nothing of that kind in this issue. It is a far deeper and graver issue than that.
I approach it with great friendliness to my right hon. Friend. I am an older man than he is, and I beg him to take advice. I know what has happened to him. He is a very good Minister of Agriculture, and I congratulate him on it. He has developed a passion for the industry, and I congratulate him on that, but you can pay too much for efficiency, as every autocracy knows. One of the issues for which we are fighting is, What does efficiency cost? We know perfectly well that, in many ways, the kind of system against which we are fighting is three times as efficient as ours. I have no doubt, also, that if the right hon. Gentleman got his way, his system would be three times as efficient as what we are proposing; but it would not be British, it would not be free, it would not be democratic and it would not be what we are fighting for in this war. That is why, so long as there is breath in my body, I shall fight against legislation such as this.
I beg my right hon. Friend to consider three points which are really raised in the Clause. First, what is the foundation of British liberty? I have been rather appalled by some of the things that have been said in the course of the Debates in this Committee. They have made me feel that people have become very muddled and very uncertain about what the foundations of our liberties are. The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) shakes his head, but I think he was one of the worst offenders. He seemed to think that liberty consisted of putting yourself under the control of civil servants. I have the greatest admiration for the civil servants but they are British subjects too. They are ourselves, and they are not our masters. The question is, Who controls this system? What we are fighting for is a system under which responsibility is widely diffused and in which responsibility rests upon every man and woman in the country, and is not centralised on that Government Front Bench. I beg hon. and right hon. Members opposite to remember that. What are the foundations of British liberty?


There are two fundamental principles, I should say, accepted since the days of Runnymede, or very nearly as far back as that. The first is that a man—

The Deputy-Chairman: This subject is outside the scope of the Clause. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we are talking on a Milk and Dairies Bill and not on the foundations of British liberty. I realise that in this Amendment we are going into a most important point, but I hope we will not develop too far into the foundations of British liberty.

Sir E. Grigg: I bow with great respect to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I beg to point out that, under the present Standing Orders of the House of Commons it is becoming practically impossible to discuss even those principles for which the House of Commons stands. They are generally out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The fact that we are having a wide discussion to-day shows that it is not impossible to do so when those principles affect an individual matter. The sole point which I raised is that we should keep fairly close to the individual matter of the Amendment and of the Clause, rather than go into a wide discussion of British liberties.

Sir E. Grigg: I think that I shall be able to show you, Mr. Williams, that the points I wish to raise are very closely related to the provisions of the Clause. First of all, and here I beg your attention, Mr. Williams, there is contained in this Clause the proposal that a man is to be condemned for an offence before he has committed it. That is in this Clause. It raises a fundamental principle of British liberty, and no Chairman of the House of Commons and no House of Commons can get behind that. What has happened is that the fundamental principle is challenged that a British subject cannot be indicted for a crime of any kind until it has been proved against him in an independent court. That principle is undermined by the Clause.
What I am saying is therefore absolutely directed, and completely relevant, to what is contained in the Clause, and so is the other principle of which I wish to speak and it is fundamental in our system. That principle is that the judiciary shall be independent of the Executive. That principle also is directly raised by the

Clause. There is no suggestion in the Clause of a judiciary independent of the Executive, and unless the House of Commons is going to stand up for that principle, what is the House of Commons here for? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) actually said that the suggestion that the judiciary should be independent of the Executive was childish. I beg him to go back and consider his constitutional law.

Major York: Major York indicated dissent.

Sir E. Grigg: Indeed, he said so. When it was suggested that an appeal tribunal nominated by the Minister was not an independent body in the sense which is known to British law, he replied to one of my friends who interrupted him that that was childish.

Major York: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal is a constitutional body?

Sir E. Grigg: Of course it is. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal is appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not only the chairman but the members.

Sir E. Grigg: What my hon. and gallant Friend was doing was to take us right into the corporative State. Hon. Members on this side of the House have, I think, a better appreciation of the principle than has my hon. and gallant Friend. It is very easy for one industry after another, one trade after another, one interest after another, to say, "We understand our business better than anybody else and we want to run it ourselves," and that is the way you get away from justice and fair play to the individual and into the corporative State. There are many people in this country playing with that idea at the present time, not only my hon. Friend opposite—the whole of the Communist Party—but a great many Members, who are not aware of the extent to which they are leading this country at the present time into the camp against which we are fighting.

Mr. Gallacher: It is all right when it applies to the workers.

Sir E. Grigg: I agree that my hon. Friend is quite right to assert his principles. As a matter of fact, as I happen


all my life to have loathed and detested them, and as I believe that the war is being fought against the kind of principles which the hon. Member is trying to inculcate, I am not impressed by his argument. I beg my right hon. Friend, when he comes to answer the Debate on this Amendment, to face three particular points which I think are of importance. The first thing is that there should be an appeal from the executive act of the Minister. Every British subject has a right to that. That appeal should be, not to any kind of body nominated by himself, because that is not independent. It should be to an absolutely independent tribunal. We are bound to insist upon it in this Committee. I shall be astonished—and as a partisan not disappointed but as an Englishman deeply disappointed—if my hon. Friends opposite do not support us in this Amendment. Let them by all means take the opposite line if they want an argument about it in the country. I am prepared to meet them on that ground in any company and in any constituency. The tribunal must be independent. Special tribunals, and particularly tribunals appointed by the Minister concerned so that he is prosecutor, judge and jury in his own case, simply will not do.
The second point that I would beg him to bear in mind is this: I think this is a very fair minded country. We want every man to have the same chance as every other man, so far as we can arrange it. We have not been very successful.

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.

Sir E. Grigg: We have not been very successful in the past but we are moving with great strides. We are doing our very best to secure it. The hon. Member is doing his best, and if he will believe me we are doing our best, although we do not follow the same rules. We want fairness as between individuals. Would the Minister address himself to the point that in this Clause one kind of justice is meted out to the dairy farmer and a different kind of justice to the dairyman? What is the difference? It is a passion for efficiency. My right hon. Friend wants to have clean herds and he is therefore taking autocratic powers. I understand his enthusiasm, but, at the price which he is asking for it, believe me, his en-

thusiasm is very dangerous, and he had better consider what is the character, the temper, and the fundamental principle upon which this country has been built for the last 500 years.
Finally, I would ask him to answer the point which he made in the Second Reading Debate and which has been repeated by one or two speakers to-day. It has been said to us that, after all, there is always the recourse to Parliament. If a dairy farmer is wronged he can appeal to his Member. That is fundamentally unsound from two points of view. In the first place, it is unsound because, from the very beginning, we have laid down that there shall be a judiciary independent of the Executive. Parliament cannot control the Executive. It creates the Executive and to some extent directs the Executive, but always we have said that there must be an independent appeal from the Executive if freedom is to exist. That is one of the fundamental principles upon which life in England has been carried on. It is not only that. I am a profound believer in Parliament. I believe that everything depends on the future of this House, the Mother of Parliaments, but at the rate at which we are going we are breaking its back. There is no possibility of this House of Commons being able to discharge all the duties that are placed upon it. The Clause adds enormously to those duties, and I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend that if he insists on the Clause in its present form I can promise him a series of Prayers almost every day in the week. Every time he touches a dairy farmer there will be a Prayer in this House.
It is quite wrong that that should be so. That is not the way in which Parliament should be treated. These small individual matters should not be brought to the High Court of Parliament. Sometimes we do not pay enough attention in this House to the 60,000,000 members of the Colonial Empire, but how can we? We have so much to do. Now we are to be the appeal court in regard to the case of every dairy farmer. Whoever heard of a suggestion such as that? It is simply intolerable to suggest that you can get justice for the individual by appeal to the High Court of Parliament. That is not what the High Court of Parliament is for. The High Court of Parliament is to see that, in matters of principle, the Executive is rightly guided,


but not to act as an appeal court in every individual case.
I am afraid I have spoken with some heat, but I feel very deeply about these matters. I beg my right hon. Friend to believe that I have not spoken with any hostility to him, but I will vote against anything of the nature introduced in this form. I want him to proceed on lines which will really give him success in his great mission to establish the agriculture of this country on a sound foundation. I hope he will consider the strength of the opinion which this Clause has aroused.

Mr. McGovern: I would say that fundamentally I am in agreement with the Minister in regard to the desire for clean milk, and also for efficiency, but we must see, as some hon. Members have stated to-day, that efficiency does not mean that we are going to ride roughshod over the rights of the community. With the growth throughout the world of this totalitarian feeling I am sometimes embarrassed by a large number of people about whom I am always wondering whether they are as truly democratic in their actions as in their speech on public platforms. I want to see the utmost safeguard and protection for every individual in the community, whether he be a workman at the bench or in the field, factory or mine or a man in business, under the system that is accepted at the present time. In the desire to give the utmost protection. I have felt strongly since I came to this House 14 years ago that, as stated by the hon. Gentleman who has preceded me, the Executive should not be too completely in control of affairs, that if there is an act of injustice, or if it felt that an act of injustice has been done, a completely independent body should determine the issue.
The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) has stated, I think, that he has the utmost faith in the Civil Service to do the right thing. I would say that, generally speaking, that is fairly true, but there are many cases of civil servants who have power who are just like other individuals, who have their pride and sometimes a certain amount of arrogance; they have their likes and dislikes, and if decisions are made they are very reluctant to say, even to a Minister, "I have been wrong." We are told that there is the

authority of Parliament, that a Member can take up the case of an injustice which is perpetrated. My experience is that in 99 per cent. of cases the Minister sends back to the individuals who are the cause of creating an injustice, and asks them to give a report on the issue. Naturally they justify their previous decision, because even if they discover it is wrong most of them are not prepared to admit they are wrong.
I could give a case to the hon. Member, if he wants one, of the most outstanding case I have ever had in the Glasgow area. It concerned the Ministry of Labour and the inspection of a factory in relation to a man's liability for National Service. We discovered that a report was prepared and given to the Ministry and that an examination had never been made of the facts by the individual concerned before the report was given. Only by accident did I see the report, and when I saw it I knew that the examination had never taken place. The attention of the Ministry of Labour headquarters was drawn to this, and they very rightly sent it back, and it was determined that a re-examination of the factory should take place. Two inspectors went to the factory, spent five hours there, and prepared a report. When I went to hear the effect of the report I discovered that the chairman of the Manpower Board in Glasgow, Mr. Campbell, had hidden the report and sent on a report of his own because the second report did not square with his ideas of what should be done. This is not in dispute. A third examination took place because the Ministry of Labour at headquarters were dissatisfied. On the third report, 14 or 15 months later, we only now get the conclusion that the man should not have been taken from the industry without a substitute having been found.
The hon. Gentleman said that we were drifting into the co-operative State. [HON. MEMBERS "The corporative State."] I thought he said co-operative—unless he deemed both to be of a similar type. Nevertheless, I believe it is true that the trend amongst most of the political parties to-day and the Executive authority is to set up a greater and greater bureaucracy which will deal with the individual. That is not my conception of the society I would like to be under. I would like to be under a society where the greatest amount of discussion and


reasoning would take place, and under which there would be the greatest protection for the individual. We have a form of society to-day which may not square with my ideas, but whether that be so or not, it is the accepted legal system of to-day, and under that system we have to give the greatest measure of protection to the individual, whether as a private individual or business concern. I say to the Minister "You may drive ahead for an efficient system, for a clean milk supply; all that is dear to my heart; but if one thing has happened throughout the Continent, it is that efficiency has been made a great desire, but it has meant riding roughshod over the rights of the individual." Let us have efficiency with the greatest protection given to the individual. I wish in all cases there could be in this Committee the same desire for the rights of every individual to be protected. So far as I am concerned, if a vote takes place and the Minister does not give the complete satisfaction of an independent authority, completely free from a dictatorship of the individual, I will go into the Lobby and cast my vote for the protection of the rights of the individual.

Mr. Hudson: This Bill is designed to try to improve the milk supply of this country. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) asked why the Minister of Health had not asked for additional powers, and the Minister of Agriculture had. The brief answer is that this Bill is being brought in by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself, precisely because the system which has been in operation under the Ministry of Health and local authorities for the last ten or 15 years, has failed completely to achieve the purpose which we have in view. We therefore came to the conclusion, and I would remind the Committee that this was sanctioned by the House on Second Reading, that a new system ought to be tried. This is the new system.
I am just as anxious as anybody else to preserve the reasonable rights of the individual, but I say quite definitely—I hope hon. Members will agree with me on reconsideration—that the proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh, when he said that clean milk could be bought too expensively at the cost of individual liberty,

seemed to me to go a good deal too far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] After all, what I am concerned with, and what I think the great majority of people in this country are concerned with, is, if it is humanly possible, that we should secure the children of this country from the danger of drinking unsafe and also unclean milk. Some hon. Members, in criticising the provisions of Clause 1, and in defending the Amendment, have talked about a dairy farmer losing his licence. There is no question at all in this Clause of a dairy farmer losing his livelihood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there are many alternative methods open to the ordinary farmer. The production of milk—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask the Minister—

Mr. Hudson: I did not interrupt hon. Members. There are many alternative forms of occupation open to a farmer beyond the production of milk for human consumption. He can produce milk for rearing calves, for example, and nothing in this Clause affects that. All this Clause is designed to do, is to ensure that a man should not be registered, coming new into the industry, for the production of milk for sale to human beings, unless he fulfils certain minimum standards. I will deal with the question of standards in a moment. That is really what the Bill does.
On the question of an appeal, it is my view, which I submit with all deference to the Committee, that if we are to change the existing system, which has admittedly failed, and to substitute a new one in which the Minister of Agriculture is made responsible for the production of clean milk, he must be given the necessary powers. If you proceed to limit those powers and say that he is not responsible, but some independent tribunal over whom he has no control, then the Minister cannot fulfil the burden placed upon him by Parliament, and it would be foolish for him to try to do so. If hon. Members are in doubt about that, let them just consider for a moment what would happen if there was a completely independent tribunal. I think that a suggestion along the lines put forward by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) will go a long way to meet the Committee's wishes.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Let the Minister finish. He never interrupted you while you were spitting fire.

Mr. Hudson: Supposing a case comes up where, in the opinion of the Minister, the conditions are not fulfilled, and the man is producing dirty milk. He goes to the appeal tribunal, and it might be that the tribunal decide that his licence is to be continued. The Minister would then be in a position of having to prosecute, for the production of dirty milk, a man whom a tribunal had said was producing clean milk. Obviously the situation would be completely absurd. After all, when this Bill becomes, as I hope it will, an Act of Parliament, regulations will eventually have to be laid before the House and instructions will be given for the carrying out of these regulations to try and raise the general standard of production. In the case of a new entrant into the industry, obviously the decision as to whether he is to be allowed to produce clean milk for human consumption or not will depend on whether or not his particular farm fulfils these conditions. In the case of a man who is already producing milk, his case will come up, and the authority, whoever it is, will consider whether or not the conditions of that farm are suitable for producing milk.
It will not be a final decision if the decision goes against the farmer, but a decision that, in the existing conditions of the farm, milk for human consumption ought not to be produced there. It will be always open to the farmer, in conjunction with the landlord, to say, "I will improve the conditions; I will put in water, and one thing and the other," and then his case will come up again for the grant of permission to produce milk for human consumption. This will not be, as so many hon. Members seem to assume, a decision once and for all that in no circumstances shall that man ever be allowed to produce milk for human consumption: it will be a decision only that, in the circumstances of the moment, his farm is not fit to produce milk. When the conditions improve, the question will be treated on the circumstances of the time. I know a case—it is possibly an extreme case—where the only water supply of the farm to-day is the overflow from a cesspool. That farmer is producing milk for human consumption. Clearly that is a case where it will be said, "Your conditions are not fit for the production of

milk." [An HON. MEMBER: "Any tribunal would say that."] I am directing my argument to the point that this is not a final decision for all time. But when that man, I hope, under the provisions of the Rural Water Supplies Bill, asks for water for his farm, and the water is connected up to his farm, under my Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, he can apply again, and be granted permission to produce milk. The question is whether, in any particular set of circumstances, the farmer is or is not fit to produce milk. The decision is very largely a question of the conditions to be laid down. Some hon. Members said, "Why treat the dairyman differently from the dairy farmer?" The answer is that his conditions are very different. The dairyman does not produce milk: he buys milk and sells milk; but the dairy farmer produces milk.

Mr. Turton: What is the difference between a producer-retailer and a dairy farmer?

Mr. Hudson: A producer-retailer produces milk; and, therefore, he comes under the new procedure, and is subject to the provisions of this Bill, as operated by my Department. Whether the conditions under which milk is produced on a farm are satisfactory or not is, for the greater part, a matter of opinion and of judgment. Some hon. Members may say that there ought to be some further opinion given, and that the farmer concerned should have a chance of appealing to some other body against a decision by my veterinary inspectors. I am quite ready to agree to that, and I am very anxious to meet reasonable views, provided always that it is recognised that, in the ultimate resort, I am responsible. Therefore, I propose to ask the two bodies chiefly concerned, namely the Milk Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union, to nominate a series of panels, either for counties or regions—whether it will be counties or regions will have to be decided. I suggest that a body should be formed, consisting of my superintending veterinary officer for the region—who will be a different person from the veterinary officer or lay inspector who makes an inspection of the farm—one member from a panel nominated by the Milk Marketing Board, and one member from a panel nominated by the National Farmers' Union.
The farmer should be entitled to go before that body, if he disagrees with the recommendation of my veterinary inspector, and he should be entitled to call witnesses and the tribunal should, if it is desired, inspect the farm themselves. That body should report to me, and it would be only after giving due weight to any recommendation—it would not follow that their recommendation would be unanimous, because the two members from the panels might well disagree with the view of my superintending veterinary officer—it would only be after giving consideration to their report that a decision would be taken by my Department. I think that that goes a very long way indeed to meet any objection.

Sir Percy Harris: Suppose the tribunal are unanimous in reversing the decision of the Minister's inspector, will the Minister still claim the right to ignore the appeal tribunal?

Mr. Hudson: It would be very difficult indeed, and I do not see any Minister actually ignoring that decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Would he have the power to do so?

Sir E. Grigg: Will the report of the tribunal be published? Will the farmer know what has been said to the Minister?

Mr. Hudson: Frankly, I see very considerable administrative difficulties in that. It is obvious what practical difficulties would be in the way. I beg the Committee to be realistic about this, and to have regard to the difficulties of human nature. You are asking two men, one nominated by the Milk Marketing Board and one nominated by the National Farmers' Union, to report on their fellows. Quite clearly, human nature being what it is, if they know that their report is going to be regarded as confidential, we shall get their true views. I do not say that, if we get a particularly strong man, we shall not get his real views, even if he knows that his report is going to be published, but if it is known that Mr. X, over a period of months has always reported against his fellows, we know what the position of Mr. X will be. We must make the report confidential between the tribunal and the Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Am I to

understand that on this body the representative of the Minister will be the man who first made a report on the farm?

Mr. Hudson: No, I said specifically that the representative of the Minister on this tribunal would be one of the superintending veterinary officers, of whom we have about 15. He would be someone quite different from the veterinary officer and the lay inspector, presumably, who had made an inspection of the farm. We are putting a new set of minds on the tribunal, who will come to it without any previous prejudice. I venture to think that that will, in fact, meet the real case.

Mr. Hutchinson: I invite my right hon. Friend to consider whether the chairman of the tribunal might not be an independent person, appointed from a panel selected by the Lord Chancellor. Has he considered that suggestion? Might not that prove a solution of the difficulty?

Mr. Hudson: No; I quite appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend is trying to help, but the difficulty about that would be that already I am going so far as to weight this tribunal with two people against one—with a representative of the Milk Marketing Board and a representative of the National Farmers' Union. I think that a tribunal of three, one of whom represents the Ministry while the other two represent the organised producers, is probably as reasonable and fair a tribunal as you could get in ordinary circumstances. Some Members questioned whether the final power of raising questions in this House was adequate. All I can say, speaking very humbly, is that since 1931 I have served in all the home Departments except the Home Office, and the thing that has impressed me above everything else in the period of that service, especially in peace-time, is that the great protection of the individual against the Executive lies in the fact that every civil servant knows that, in the last resort, his Minister can be questioned in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he does. When hon. Members have been in Government offices they realise that it is not only the fact that a Member can raise a point that is the safeguard: it is that the civil servant has, so to speak, a professional pride in not letting his Minister down, and, therefore, in seeing that bad decisions are not made. Anyone of us who has been in office knows that hon.


Members—certainly it is so in my experience—are not at all shy about writing in and complaining about individual cases.

Sir W. Davison: If the Minister's reply is not satisfactory, what is the position of the House?

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend has been in the House longer than I have, and he knows that, when there is any serious belief that an injustice has been committed by any Department, hon. Members are not slow in raising the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) talked about the fundamental difficulties. Surely, most fundamental of all is the rule of this House that redress of grievances comes before Supply.

Mr. Colegate: I think a more disappointing defence has never been heard from a Minister. We have here a Clause which gives the most astonishing powers at any time, which powers are peculiarly dangerous at the present time. The Minister is asking for powers to prevent a man following an occupation which he wishes to follow, not on the ground that he has committed any offence whatsoever, but merely on the grounds that the Minister, or his servants, thinks that he is going to commit an offence in the future. That would have been a very serious thing at any time, but what is proposed at the moment is that in no department of the national life is a man to be allowed to follow an occupation without the licence of a Minister.
I know of the case of a man returned from the Forces who wants to be a cobbler, and the Board of Trade refuses to give him a licence. We hope that is only a war-time measure, but many of us are frightened, when we see Bills of this kind, that this system is going to be continued after the war, and that we are going to get into the position where people will only be able to make their living and follow their occupation if and when the Minister sees fit, and not only when he sees fit now, but if he thinks they are likely to do well in the future. I would ask some Members of the party opposite whether they think that is a desirable precedent to set up in industry and agriculture in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That applies to the coal

industry."] Quite, and I am absolutely against it. I say that the moment the war necessity goes we should abolish compulsion to go into any industry or prevent a man going into any industry for which he thinks he is fitted.
The Minister made the most extraordinary defence and gave an example which horrified some of us. He said that if there was an independent tribunal there might be a case where his inspector had reported a man on the ground that he was supplying dirty milk, and that he might then go to the tribunal and the tribunal might say it was not so. "Then," said the Minister—and this was an astonishing thing to say—"I should have to prosecute although the tribunal's decision was favourable to the man." Why should the Minister have to prosecute? That was the sort of reply Goering gave in the Reichstag trial. He said "I do not care what the tribunal says; I shall kill this man anyway." The Minister then says, "Although the independent tribunal will excuse the man, nevertheless I shall have to go on and prosecute, and that will not be a very nice position for me." Of course that will not be a very nice position for him, but if that principle gets into our industrial organisation it will strike such a blow at the individual liberty of the subject as we have not seen for a long time. I warn the people opposite, who take this matter so lightly, and who are not influenced by the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) that they will be the first people to complain when such a principle operates in another direction. It is a principle which this Committee ought to consider most seriously.
I do not think the Minister has treated this Committee with that deference he ought to have shown, because the compromise he now suggests is no compromise at all. It does not meet any of the fundamental objections, and none of the things he has said, in my opinion, makes any difference between the tribunal he proposes and the independent tribunal which does not need to be weighted and whose decisions will not be constantly brought before this House. To say, in defence of bad legislation, that you can bring it up day after day before this House of Commons is not sufficient. It is a remedy, but a remedy only to be used in the last resort, and should not be quoted as though it were the normal


routine. We all want clean milk, but we, on this side, want more effective machinery for securing it than the Minister has proposed.

Sir Percy Harris: This is a very serious matter. I am lost in admiration of the right hon. Gentleman's campaign in favour of clean milk—a vital campaign for the nation. There is no doubt that dirty milk is one of the greatest evils we have to fight. It is no use mincing words. Dirty milk has been sold to the public, and public opinion demands that the right hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill of this kind and make it work. The whole Committee is with him there; but there is a very vital issue at stake. We have always gone on the lines that we would rather a guilty man got off than that an innocent man should be punished unjustly. That is essential to English law and I daresay that principle applies in this case. One bad distributor or producer of dirty milk can kill a lot of children and do a lot of harm. There have been cases in many districts of bad milk and of illness being traced to it. Unfortunately, bad milk being put in the same can as pure milk contaminates the whole of it. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet us, but has not gone far enough, He has put forward the proposal that a panel of three people should be set up, one representing the distributor, one the producer, and, I understand, one his Chief Inspector. I am not quite certain whether I have got the last name correct.

Mr. Hudson: He would be my Regional Superintending Inspector.

Sir P. Harris: I do suggest that it is not too much to ask that, given a case where this tribunal or panel, or whatever you like to call it, reverses the decision of the Minister's Inspector, that reversal should be accepted by his Department. I cannot imagine such a tribunal being prepared to exonerate a man who has been condemned for unfair distribution of milk. If the Minister will meet us to that extent I do not think it will endanger his excellent Bill or the primary purpose of giving good milk to the country, and will, at the same time, preserve the right against arbitrary rule by Government Departments. I understand that under the old machinery there was the right of appeal to a court against the decision of a local authority. I am informed that in very few

cases were any appeals made. I cannot imagine that the nation will be flooded with appeals of this kind, and if the right hon. Gentleman makes a proposal which is a good proposal, a reality, I believe his honour will be satisfied and the Committee will feel that the rights of British subjects will be safeguarded.

Mr. Hudson: May I just answer the appeal which my right hon. Friend has made? I quite understand, and am very anxious to meet, his point. I have not the least doubt that in 999 cases out of 1,000 where the tribunal's decision is unanimous that their verdict will be accepted. The only difficulty I find is in giving a specific promise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I have had a good deal of experience. I can give a definite assurance that it will in almost every case, though I cannot give the assurance that it will in every single case.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I am going to support the appeal of the right hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) to the Minister to make this appeal a genuine one. As the Committee is against the Minister's refusal to make the appeal a genuine one, I think he will have the agricultural community and the consuming community against him as well. I believe that the Minister could give way on this point without the slightest risk to the milk supply of the future. Having said that, and having made that appeal to the Minister, I want to say another thing. I do not share the view which has been so freely expressed by a great many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. I believe that, as I said on Second Reading, a change is necessary, because so many of the existing local authorities—the rural district councils—are either unable or unwilling, or, at all events, have failed, to carry out their functions, and I believe that the Minister might get over a great many of the difficulties if he was able to announce to the Committee that, where there has been efficient functioning and efficient inspection by a local authority, he will endeavour to act through that—

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. At an earlier stage, I was moving an Amendment for a similar purpose, and was ruled out of Order by the Chair. Is it now in Order to discuss it?

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): It appears to me that the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) is in Order in his remarks.

Sir G. Courthope: We all want to get over this difficulty. We all want to avoid interference by officials with people doing their job properly, and we all want to secure a clean milk supply. I believe that, if the Minister was willing to use as his agents the existing local authorities and inspectors, where they are efficient and willing to do the work, a great deal of the difficulty would be overcome.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Member is going too far. He is challenging a decision already arrived at.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I cannot agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, because he was out of Order—not having been here all day; but what he said I agree with—[Interruption]—and I do not propose to follow his example. The feeling of the Committee runs strongly against the Minister. I do not hesitate to say that the Minister's defence was a very weak one indeed. When I heard the refreshing breeze provided by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), which came as a very nice and proper accompaniment to a number of other speeches in similar terms, such as that of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness), who made an admirable, short, concise attack upon the Minister of Agriculture, I felt that the Minister might have expended his energy very much better than in trying to destroy a British tradition—the tradition of being allowed to carry on with the work to which you have set your mind, and at which you are reasonably efficient. I hope that the Minister, as the result of his journeys to and fro in the Committee and his talks to the Leader of the House, will agree that a system of appeal should be allowed. I do not hesitate to say that, speaking for many hon. Members of my own party and also to some hon. Friends on the opposite side of the House, what supine Teutonic faint-hearts we should be if we accepted the idea of setting up this central authority as the system by which the country is to be governed. I feel very strongly about this because, as I said on Second Reading, it is striking at the very roots of all that has gone to build up this country. I am

accusing the Minister of having exceeded his Mandate. I do not like the feeling, the suspicion, that, while the Cabinet is so deeply involved in the responsibilities and considerations of the war, the Minister should seem to be trying to do something which would not receive Cabinet approval if the times were not so anxious. Therefore, I beg the Minister to consider and talk the matter over with the Leader of the House, so as to give a large body of opinion some consideration.

Major Thorneycroft: I hope the Minister's conversations with his colleagues will be fruitful. Really, the whole sense of the Committee is in favour of this Amendment. It is not a matter in which the Conservative Party takes a particular part, though every Conservative speaker has spoken in favour of the Amendment, but we had a speech from the Common Wealth Party, and speeches from the Liberal Party, the Independent Labour Party and from the National Liberals all, broadly speaking, in the same sense. I would also suggest that, when the sense of the Committee is expressed in that way, my right hon. Friend is really putting us in an impossible position by refusing the concession. Most of us have memories of another occasion, when a similar expression of view caused the Government to suffer defeat by one vote. We do not want to get into that difficult situation again. I do not know what attitude the Government are going to take. I see the Leader of the House is there. He has had much more experience in these matters than I, but I should say, with my short experience and from a casual glance round, that defeat is quite inevitable in the next few minutes, unless the Government make some concession on this particular point. In these circumstances, I would ask the Minister if he cannot say that, between now and the Report stage, some discussions will take place so that some solution of this matter could be found. For my own part, I do not think this is one of the great fundamental issues. I think it is an overstatement of this case to suggest that it is a choice between the liberty of the subject and clean milk. The Minister has said that we ought to give him powers, and we are perfectly ready to give him powers, as in many other matters, but when it comes to the breaking of one of these regulations we asked that an independent tribunal should


decide. That is a simple and straightforward matter, and I should have thought that the Minister could have made some concession on it, in view of the feeling in the Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Magnay: On a point of Order. How many times is the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) going to speak to-day? This is the third time.

Mr. Gallacher: Under the present proposal, if the tribunal that is suggested by the Minister decides against the dairy farmer, the dairy farmer can go to a Member of Parliament—any of us—and we can say that we will fight for all we are worth to get the matter reconsidered. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, that is the position. Many of us have taken up other matters. In the proposals put before us now there is a body to be appointed independently of the Executive. It makes a decision against the dairy farmer and the dairy farmer comes to a Member of Parliament and says, "I consider this to be an unjust decision, will you do something for me?" What is the answer of the Member of Parliament? It is, "I can do nothing for you; this body is absolutely sacrosanct." That is totalitarianism and the thing against which this Committee has to fight. It is a body appointed outside the House which is independent of the Executive and, therefore, independent of this House.

Mr. Tinker: The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of

Division No. 24.
AYES.



Adams, Major S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cape, T.
Emery, J. F.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Cary, R. A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Charleton, H. C.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Cluse, W. S.
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay


Apsley, Lady
Conant, Major R. J. E.
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Foster, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.


Barr, J.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Daggar, G.
Gallacher, W.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Denville, Alfred
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batlay)
Debbie, W.
Gibbins, J.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Glanville, J. E.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Benson, G.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Comdr. R.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Dunn, E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Ede, J. C.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hamsworth)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Bull, B. B.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelty)
Gruffydd, W. J.


Burden, T. W.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.


Burke, W. A.
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Guy, W. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

the Committee. He has conceded 99 points out of the 100. Cannot he now concede the other one? Before he spoke I was inclined to vote for the Amendment. I waited for his speech and I thought he did very well, but I would now ask him to "go the whole hog."

Mr. Hudson: I am extremely desirous to do everything I can to meet the wishes of the Committee consistently with retaining what I regard as absolutely vital, which is a real attempt to clean up the milk supply of the country. I do not want to wash dirty linen in public, but I have been going round the country for four years and this problem has not been tackled. The methods adopted up to now have not achieved anything, and in my humble view it is the most important thing left for the agricultural industry. Milk is priority No. 1, and I shall not be satisfied until we get clean milk as priority No. 1 and not merely safe milk. I shall be very glad indeed to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and go the other bit. I will undertake, if it will meet the wishes of the Committee, that if this intermediate tribunal, consisting of my Regional Superintending Inspector and the members of the panel nominated by the Milk Marketing Board and by the National Farmers' Union, is unanimous, to accept the decision.

Question put, "That the words 'for the' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 76.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Maitland, Sir A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Hammarsley, S. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen, Sir E.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hardie, Agnes
Mathers, G,
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp;amp; Nairn)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hynd, J. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Isaacs, G. A.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Neal, H.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


John, W.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Tinker, J. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Oldfield, W. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Peat, C. U.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Kirkwood, D.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Ward, Irane M. B. (Wallsend)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Watson, W. MoL.


Liddall, W. S.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Linstead, H. N.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Ritson, J
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. G.
Roberts, W.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)
Woodburn, A,


McEntee, V. la T.
Ross Taylor, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rowlands, G.
York, Major C.


Mack, J. D.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McKinlay, A. S.
Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.



McNeil, H.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Pym.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gretton, J. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Rankin, Sir R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Henderson, J. J. Cralk (Leeds, N.E.)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Salt, E. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'k &amp; Selk'k)


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Jewson, P. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Colonel R. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colegate, W. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Craven-Ellis, W
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lewis, O.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Doland, G. F.
Lipson, D. L.
Touche, G. C.


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gl'n, N.)
Loverseed, J. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Eccles, D. M.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McGovern, J.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Findlay, Sir E.
Magnay, T.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Furness, S. N.
Maxton, J.



Gates, Major E. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Graham, Capt. A. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Mr. Erskine-Hill and Mr.


Granville, E. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Manningham-Buller.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "refusal or."
I have watched with keen interest the result of the voting in the Division which has just taken place. I know it is ordinarily said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and so the proof of the Division is presumably in the Division List, but I do not feel that the result of that Division at all reflected the true feeling of the House or the Committee—

The Temporary Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to deal with the Amendment.

Mr. Petherick: I am sorry, Sir Lambert, unwittingly to transgress against the Rules of Order. This Amendment, which stands in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, is, I feel, one of the most important Amendments in the whole of the Committee stage. Now the Bill provides for the registration by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of dairy


farms and of persons carrying on the trade of a dairy farmer, and similarly for the refusal or cancellation of any such registration by the Minister if, in his opinion, the regulations will not be, or are not being complied with. However, I do not think we can seriously object to the effect of registration and, indeed, many of us in the circumstances would be willing to accept it, especially as the registration of dairy farms is now a law of the land. However, what we do object to is giving the Minister of Agriculture the right of refusal of registration. It may be said that there are precedents for this course. Now a precedent which has been established for long enough ought to have full weight given to it, because an ancient precedent implies by its mere age that it has probably been challenged on a number of occasions and that the fact which it had established was good on its merits and ought to be accepted. But a short term precedent only implies that something has been done before, and that it ought to be taken into consideration as part of the evidence when the question of whether or not one should do the same thing again comes up.
Therefore, I lay no weight whatever on the claim which may be made that there are precedents for refusal of registration. As I mentioned, as things are now the local authorities cannot refuse a registration to a dairy farmer—he applies and he gets his registration normally. I remember on many occasions having opposed Bills which set up some kind of board with wide powers which gave, in effect, the warm seats near, the fire to those who are already in the trade. I believe that is entirely undesirable. If a man wishes to start up in a new trade I think he should be perfectly entitled to do so, although he may have to comply with registration in the sense of applying to be put on the register so that the Government Department concerned shall know who is or who is not carrying on that particular trade.
If that is all that is implied by registration, I have no objection. If, however, he is asking the Government Department for leave to start in a trade, then I think there are very strong objections on constitutional grounds. We have heard a good deal 'about the authoritarian system and the corporate State. That is very much what the corporate State, in fact, does—it lays down certain rules, there are

a number of corporations, and only those who are licensed in those corporations are allowed to carry on the trade at all. That seems to me to be entirely undesirable and a very grave infringement of the liberty of the subject.
Nor do I believe it is in the general interest, because conditions are constantly changing, and if the powers asked for under the Bill were to be generally widened for different trades—which they might well be if we did not make a strong protest—we should find that every trade in the country, sooner or later, would be governed under this form of legislation. The result would be undesirable rigidity, and that persons who wished to start in a trade perhaps because they were not successful in another would be debarred from doing so.
There are two classes of dairymen—those who are engaged in the trade and those who may wish to enter the trade. I think it would be monstrous if the Minister said that, in his opinion, judging from inspectors' reports, a person who was now a dairyman should not be registered when the Bill comes into force. It would be very nearly as bad if the Minister said that anybody who wishes to become a dairyman could not do so, because he did not think he would be likely to make a good dairyman. That is a slight exaggeration, but it is putting into simple language the powers which the Minister possesses. It is absolutely wrong that anyone who is now in the trade as a dairyman or who may wish to enter it should have his registration refused in any circumstances. It is no good saying, "I do not think you will be a very good dairyman, because you were not a good dairyman in the past," because proof of that would be required.
I do not object to cancellation, because I would put cancellation in a different category. The whole country wants to see more milk produced, and cleaner milk, but the point is whether, in trying to see that cleaner milk is manufactured and sold to the public, you are doing greater harm to the liberty of the subject than you are gaining by producing clean milk. By his powers of cancellation alone the Minister has quite sufficient strength on his side to be able to ensure that milk should be clean. If a man manufactures or sells dirty milk his licence may be cancelled


and if, as a result of a later stage of this Bill, he is able to win his case before an independent tribunal, his position is assured.
Why on earth should a man not start a dairy farm if he wants to and why on earth should not a man who is doing the job continue to do so? The Minister will no doubt reply that the Government have no intention of interfering with people, but as many Members have said, justice is not always done, and it is in the giving of powers of this kind to a Government Department that many of us see extreme danger. I do not want to say much more on this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are rather encouraging me to talk on several other points which I have in mind, but I will not do so. I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely wrong that a Minister should have power to say to anybody, "You shall not start as a dairy farmer, because I do not think you will be able to carry out my rules." That is, broadly and brutally, exactly what the Minister is taking power to say in this Bill, if it is not amended.
May I take an extreme analogy? It is very easy to say that the milk trade is a blot, that a great deal of dirty milk is being sold and that this is the only way to clean it up. It is not a far step to say that there has been a great outbreak of stealing, and that the only way to stop it is to give the Home Secretary power, not to override the courts but to stop them altogether by an authoritarian Measure such as this. Surely that is a fair even if a slightly exaggerated analogy. Therefore, we have to look carefully where we are going because appetite grows even in eating. If you grant these powers in this Bill other Bills will be produced of a same character and will become the heavy weight of precedent, and before we know where we are the liberty of the subject will be gone. The Minister ought not to be given powers beyond those of cancellation. Every dairyman, either at present in the trade or who wishes to start in the trade, should be automatically registered.

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend said that, in his view, no one ought to be refused permission to become a dairy farmer and produce milk for human consumption because the Minister, or his minions, thought

that he would produce dirty milk. He said that that was an infringement of the liberty of the subject. It would be just as reasonable to argue that only after a motor driver has been proved inefficient and has killed somebody should his licence to drive be taken away. A grave defect of the present system is that a local authority cannot refuse to register a milk producer. That is one of the troubles we are legislating against. To say to a man that he can produce milk when you know that the milk he will produce will be dirty, and then proceed to cancel his registration, is a cumbersome procedure which we cannot accept.

Mr. Lionel Berry: I support the Amendment, which has been so ably moved. I am not at all convinced by the arguments of the Minister, whose analogy of the motor car seemed most inappropriate. If a man wishes to obtain a licence to drive a motor car he usually goes through a test in order to see whether he is capable of driving properly.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, and that is precisely why I gave the analogy. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) said there would not be a test.

Mr. Berry: What the Minister is doing in this Bill is not to give the farmer any right to have a test at all. He or his officials will decide that a man will not make a good dairy farmer and the man will not have an opportunity of undergoing a test.

Mr. Hudson: What the Ministry of Transport inspector does is to examine a man, look at him and decide whether he is a proper person to have a licence.

Mr. Berry: With due respect to my right hon. Friend, there is nothing in this Bill about giving a test of any kind, or an examination by the Minister or any of his staff. I think it is wrong to balance the rights of the individual against clean milk. I am convinced that we could have both. That argument was made clear on the last Amendment. Those who say that people should have clean milk at the expense of the liberty of the subject, are equally wrong with those who say "You must have liberty of the subject at the expense of clean milk." You can have both. I should have thought the Minister was anxious to encourage milk producers


as far as possible, but putting in words like this is more likely to discourage than to encourage farmers. As the Minister always has the right to cancel, I feel that it is better to leave out these words.

Mr. Hutchinson: I think my right hon. Friend, in replying to this Amendment, did not do justice to my hon. Friend's speech. The case he put, as I understood his argument, is this. Here is a man carrying on the business of a dairy farmer. Suddenly he is required to obtain registration.

Mr. Hudson: If he carries on business at present, he is already registered, and the only question that can arise is cancellation. It is only a question of refusal where a man wants to start dairy farming.

Mr. Hutchinson: That is not what the Bill says. The Bill says the Minister may refuse registration. It is true that an applicant for registration may be registered at present under different regulations but it is not by any means clear that he is going to be entitled upon that ground to registration under this Bill. In these Bills which call for registration of persons who are either not required to be registered at all or are registered under different regulations, there is usually a provision that a person already carrying on the occupation should be entitled to registration under the new conditions. My right hon. Friend will recollect the Architects Registration Bill, and I call to mind the Dentists Registration Bill, which had the same provision. If it is true that everyone at present registered would be entitled to registration under the new conditions, that ought to be provided for in the Bill. But it is not in the Bill as at present drafted. My hon. Friend's argument was that everyone carrying on the business of a dairy farmer ought to have an opportunity to show that he could carry it on in accordance with the Regulations; he ought not to be met with a blank refusal. The powers of the Minister will be completely safeguarded, as my right hon. Friend said, by the power to cancel registration. If the Minister's power is limited to cancellation, he will then be precisely in the same position as a licensing authority for motor drivers, if I may borrow his own illustration. He will be able to test an applicant, and to see whether he

can come up to the prescribed standard. The applicant will have an opportunity to show what he can do before he is refused registration. That is all that we are asking for in the Amendment.

Mr. McEntee: It appears to me that the Amendment is just saying to people who apply for a licence, "You can kill first, and, having murdered, we will say whether you are entitled to go on killing, or whether we will prevent you." What the Amendment suggests is that anyone can apply for registration and no one can be refused. It cannot mean anything else. Having obtained registration, they can poison the public during the time between starting producing dirty milk, and the time the Minister is able to cancel their registration. There are two sorts of people who can apply for registration, the person who is already producing milk and the person who is not producing it. The Minister is asking power, in the case of people who are producing milk, to cancel their registration if they are not producing it in accordance with the Regulations and, in the case of people who are not producing milk, to say, "before I give you the right to produce milk I want to be satisfied that you have appliances which will enable you to produce it satisfactorily and within the Regulations." The Amendment seeks to take away that right, and the Minister will be compelled to register a person in circumstances like this. A person is registered and is producing milk but, because of his record, and his refusal to produce satisfactory milk, his registration is cancelled. A brother, or a friend, might come along within a few days and take over the farm which was considered to be utterly incapable of producing good milk and the Minister would be bound to grant registration and the brother could go on producing milk until cancellation could be provided for. The position would be intolerable for the Minister and for the public and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman is not going to accept the Amendment.

Sir W. Davison: I hope the Committee will consider what the position will be if these words are not inserted. It will mean that if, in the opinion of the Minister, his Regulations will not be complied with, he can refuse any application for registration. Supposing a soldier comes back from the front who has been employed by a farmer,


or has perhaps seen a dairy farm in Normandy or elsewhere, and thinks that is the sort of work he would like to do. Because of some report that had reached the Minister he is to be refused registration. What should we think if we found that, in Italian law, people were given registration, unless Signor Mussolini thought that regulations made by him would not be complied with? That is an exact parallel. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend's opinion but I do not think that any individual should have these sweeping powers over the lives of members of the community. Some tribunal should be set up which would enable a man to show that, even if he had made a slip in the past, he was capable of remedying it, and carrying on an efficient business.
How many of us have not had occasion to change their opinions with regard to individuals. It is far too great a responsibility to cast upon the Minister. We criticised Hitler when he put himself over the judges and said, "Unless, in my opinion, the opinion of the judges is suitable …" That is what the Minister is doing here. He says, "I have made certain regulations and if, in my opinion, this man is not suitable, I shall not register him." The words "in my opinion" ought to be emblazoned on the escutcheon of the House of Commons if we ever pass this provision. We have a court of appeal consisting of a number of judges, but here we are asked to give power to one individual to block the career of a soldier or any other man simply because, in his opinion, he is not likely to comply with the regulations which the Minister himself has made. Who can say whether a man is likely to comply with the regulations? It is far too great a responsibility to throw on to any one individual. I hope that the Committee will insist on passing this Amendment so that we can have a tribunal instead of leaving it to one man to say whether a person is likely to carry out the regulations.

Sir E. Grigg: I rise to ask for information about something the Minister said when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—that this applied only to new registrations. The Clause lays down that every dairy farmer shall be registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, but inasmuch

as every dairy farmer is not now registered, that, presumably, means that they have all now to be registered. The Minister did not seem to be quite clear about the effect of his own Bill in that respect. The Bill seems to make clear that a complete registration of dairy farmers is to be carried out.

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend sits for part of a well known milk county. I should have thought that he would have known that at the present moment every dairy farmer is supposed to be registered by the local authority.

Sir E. Grigg: It is true that I represent, in part at least, a large dairy constituency, and I know that many farmers are not registered by the Ministry of Agriculture. They are registered by the local authorities. The Bill says that they are to be registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, and, therefore, I asked a proper question, about which my right hon. Friend need not be discourteous, or ponderous, or overweening. Does this mean another registration? I hope that he will give a clear answer. Those who want to enter the industry of milk production will have to apply for registration. I have no objection to that. If an entirely new candidate for milk production is refused registration, has he an appeal to the quasi independent tribunal to which my right hon. Friend referred before the Division?

Mr. Hudson: Mr. Hudson indicated assent.

Sir E. Grigg: I am glad to know that it is clear that a new entrant, if he cannot get registration, can appeal and say that he is qualified to produce milk.

Mr. Turton: For a considerable time the local authorities have requested that they should have the power to refuse registration. The Minister has complained that local authorities have not been efficient in carrying out their powers, yet his predecessors have always refused to give the local authorities the right to refuse as well as to cancel registration. It comes ill from the Minister, when trying to take over the powers of the local authorities, which many of them are carrying out efficiently, that he should change the powers and give new ones to himself.

Dr. Russell Thomas: The Minister said that only a man starting a dairy farm is examined as to his suitability by one of his inspectors. How are the inspectors to judge whether a man is suitable to be a dairy farmer? We want to be clear about that point because different inspectors have different views. If there were a college or some authority which granted a certificate, the matter would be definite and a man could get registration in the same way as a doctor or a lawyer. If, howeve, only an inspector is the judge with no definite rules to guide him, we shall have very odd decisions. One inspector might think a man was efficient and another might give a different opinion. I do not think that the Minister's comparison with the granting of a driving licence is a good one. The person making this application is properly examined, according to well-established rules and tests, and is given a mark of efficiency or not, as the case may be. But on application for registration, under this Clause, there are no rules to act as a guide. There should be certain rules and regulations so that there could be a uniform standard throughout the country by which a man's efficiency could be judged. The decision of an inspector is very likely to be an arbitrary decision, and once we get arbitrary decisions in regard to men's occupations, we shall be in a very unfortunate position, and I am inclined to agree with the opinion of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that the Clause as it stands is fraught with the danger to which he referred.

Mr. Petherick: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think there is any hostility to himself, personally. He has been an extremely good Minister of Agriculture, but I think he is wrong on this issue. I would like him to clear up two points. There is, first, the point that has been stressed about the person who is already registered by the local authority. Under the Bill as drafted my right hon. Friend is wrong in thinking—if he does—that these people are automatically taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture. There are two processes. One is the existing process, under which these people are registered with their local authority. Then there is the new process, which begins when the persons are re-registered by the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he

intends to take over all those who are at present registered. If so, will he not introduce words into the Bill to carry out that intention?
The second point is with regard to those who have not yet started up in business as dairy farmers but who may wish to do so. Is it part of Government policy to give the Departments power to deal with other kinds of health matters, say, in respect of meat, pigs, cattle-sheds and pig-sties in the same sort of way, and to give the Minister the right to say who shall or who shall not start up in business? Is that part of general policy or is it an exception to the general rule?

Mr. Hudson: Taking the second point first, I may say that I have quite enough trouble over milk without wanting to delve into pig-sties. I am responsible for this Bill; questions on other matters had better be put on the Paper and addressed to the Ministers responsible. In the question of registration, it is my intention, as at present advised, to take over the existing registrations. Even supposing we had to re-register all existing cases, in five or ten years' time, when there are new people coming in, this power of refusal would be required.

Sir E. Grigg: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear? It seems that, even if the Bill were passed with its present language, it would be legal to go on producing milk until stopped by the Ministry of Agriculture. If so, that ought to be made quite clear. The Bill lays down that you are not to produce milk until you are registered by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Hudson: I will consider that point when we come to the draft Regulations.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend introduce such a provision into the Bill on Report stage? It would satisfy a great many of us. I know that it is usual for a Minister to say: "This is my intention and I have announced it in the House," but it is more satisfactory to see that the points in question are put into the Bill in the course of its passage.

Mr. Hudson: I will certainly consider the point. I do not know whether it can be done during the Report stage or in another place.

Captain Strickland: We have to decide about the purpose of the particular objections of the Minister's to the deletion of the words. What is the purpose that the Minister has in mind? Is it to restrict the number of entrants into the industry or is it for the purpose of securing a pure milk supply to our people? If the purpose is the restriction of the industry, the Committee would do well to object to placing in the hands of any individual Minister of the Government the power to restrict trade in the country. To place those powers into the hands of one Minister is an abrogation of the privileges of the people of the country. We see in the Clause that—
The power of making Milk and Dairies Regulations under section twenty of the principal Act shall, instead of being exercised by the Minister of Health, be exercised jointly by that Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
By the Clause, power is to be taken into the hands of the Minister himself to restrict entrance into the trade.
If it is the desire of the Minister to secure that the country has a pure milk supply, I suggest that that should be done by Regulation. It is no good for the Minister to say that he will have power to stop a man from going into the industry who may be liable to give an impure milk supply. Surely, the regulations which the Minister can make, governing the production of milk ought to be sufficient to secure that the supply of milk is pure. I am afraid that we are parting with the liberty of the individual to engage in the trade of the country and placing entire power in the hands of one Minister. I cannot see why it should not be possible to give the right to apply to an independent board, or some other tribunal outside the power of the Minister, as to whether the individual can engage in the trade or not. I am very disturbed to find friends of mine on the Government Front Bench who are prepared to place in the hands of the State powers such as those against which we are at war, and which restrict the liberty of the subject to engage in the trade of the country.

Sir Stanley Reed: I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) has missed the fundamental point of the discussion. If we allow a man to carry on the business of milk producing we place in his hands a highly dangerous instru-

ment. To do so without reasonable cause to believe that he can handle it efficiently is to permit a very great menace to the public health.

Captain Strickland: My hon. Friend could not have understood what I said, which was that regulations could be made to secure a supply of pure milk, so that every person had to comply with them who wished to produce milk. To suppose that we wish to enable any man to produce dirty milk and to sell it to the public is entirely mistaken. A milk producer's cows would have to be properly housed and milked. What I object to is placing the whole power in the hands of any individual to say that a man shall not go into a particular trade.

Sir S. Reed: I perceive my hon. and gallant Friend's argument, but is it not a fact that the Minister is trying to get as much milk as he can? Is it, therefore, within the bounds of common sense that he is going to do anything to get men out of the industry without reasonable cause, or do anything else which would obstruct the production of the very article which he wants?

Mr. Messer: That is the most sensible speech from that side of the Committee to-day.

Mr. Petherick: In view of the Minister's statement that he will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage and his statement of how the present position stands, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, after "representations," to insert "in writing."

Mr. T. J. Brooks: Is not my Amendment in page 1, line 18, to be called?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We have passed it. The Amendment I have is that which has just been moved by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick).

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not the case that for convenience two Amendments were grouped together? They happen to be streets apart in the Bill but they are concerned with the same thing, and it is unfair to my hon. Friend if his Amendment is passed over.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have definitely called the Amendment which has just been moved by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth. There is no alternative but to go on with that Amendment.

Mr. Brooks: Are you, Mr. Williams, going to call my Amendment afterwards? It is on the Order Paper for to-day and I understood it was to be called.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not being called.

Mr. McKinlay: Might I point out that the reason why this Amendment has been passed over, is because the Chair indicated that hon. Members were discussing the same thing in the two Amendments, and that it might be convenient to jump from one to the other?

Mr. Turton: Could we consider whether it is convenient to the Committee, when we are discussing a Bill in Committee, to have two Amendments buried away at the end of the Paper? A lot of hon. Members have not seen these two Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is, obviously, some small difficulty here, in that the Order Paper most of us have does not carry the Amendment in question. The point can be raised when it is moved "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I must stand by my Ruling and I have actually called the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The possibility is that had this Amendment been on this Paper, you, Mr. Williams, would not have passed over it. Not having seen it, you went on to the Amendment which has been moved. I think that although it was your Ruling it would be better if you called the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks).

The Deputy-Chairman: It might be better, but one thing is very certain. We cannot go back. The point can be discussed on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hudson: As it is a drafting Amendment, and I think an improvement, I will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "twenty-eight."
I need not make a long speech. The Amendment really seeks to give the person aggrieved one week longer in which to make his representations. The point I had in mind was that there might be a farmer who has a mixed farm, and that it might be harvest time, when he is heavily engaged. In addition he has probably spent a large amount of his spare time filling up Government forms. We want to give the person concerned the maximum amount of time which we reasonably can in order to make his representations.

Mr. Hudson: In the case of a refusal to grant a registration I see no objection to 28 days instead of 21. But on the other hand, in the case of a desire to cancel the registration, then, of course, from the point of view of public health the sooner the sale of milk is stopped the better. Therefore, I should be rather reluctant to agree to this further extension. However, if my hon. Friend attaches great importance to the Amendment I am reluctantly prepared to accept it, but I think on balance it would be better not to press it.

Mr. Turton: I think the Minister is extremely reasonable in what he says, but could we have that in the Bill?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think there is a great deal of importance in giving an additional seven days in the case of a refusal. I do not want unduly to delay the proceedings, but I will certainly try and get the point put in, in another place.

Mr. Turton: Or Report stage?

Mr. Hudson: If a manuscript Amendment can be got through.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

Mr. T. J. Brooks: The point I want to raise is that which was in my proposed Amendment, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
or if he is satisfied upon representation made by any local authority that the public health is or is likely to be endangered.


The Bill provides in Clause 1 for the registration of dairy farms by the Minister of Agriculture. My plea is that local authorities be consulted at any rate. In this matter presumably the knowledge of local circumstances possessed by officers of a local authority will not be available to the Minister as the Bill now stands, because they are cut out altogether. The Minister is to have power to cancel or refuse registration where regulations "will not be or are not being complied with." No matter, how these regulations are framed they cannot meet every set of circumstances. For example, the water supply may be liable to pollution or contamination through causes not known to the Minister or his officers. That is rather serious where such a liability occurs owing to say, an outbreak of typhoid fever near the source of water supply, or to persons who are typhoid carriers.
Provision should be made for the Minister to receive suitable representations from the local authorities. Here you have men who have been trained for this work in the service of the local authorities. I think we should at least bring these officers into consultation instead of cutting them out. I do not see why the Minister should say "We can do without you altogether." If he can bring them in surely he should do so, and my Amendment was to meet contingencies which might arise in this way.

Mr. Turton: This seems to be an opportunity to consider what we are doing in this Clause, in handing over powers from the local authorities to the Minister of Agriculture, in regard to the registration of dairy farms. This is the first opportunity we have had of examining the question. I think there is general agreement that there has been a varying standard of efficiency among the local authorities in carrying out this duty, but I think it is agreed by the Minister of Agriculture that some local authorities have discharged their obligations very satisfactorily. I will give an instance from my own constituency. That authority is the Flaxton Rural District Council, which has in its area only 161 milk producers, yet, in the eight years, it has carried out 4,318 inspections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods), who lives in that area, knows, clean milk is assured to that area as a result. That authority

has carried out 4,318 inspections, has reconstructed 105 cowsheds, and has constructed 73 new dairies.
What is worrying some hon. Members is whether this Clause is the best way of dealing with the problem of varying authorities. Should we, instead, try to achieve this object rather on the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks) on the Second Reading, within the framework of local government, and, while handing back the additional powers of the Minister to the local authorities, give the Minister power to take over those responsibilities afterwards in default? I think that that should be considered very carefully by this Committee, because it is one of the key principles of local government and of British democracy that this framework of public health should be in the hands of local authorities. It will be a great shame if the administration of dairy farming is taken away from the local authorities and handed over to the Minister, while in other trades it remains with the local authorities, and if, while other trades have still the democratic right of appeal against the decision of the local authority, here there is no independent right of appeal, but merely a reconsideration of the problem by a body nominated by the Minister; and, unless that body is unanimous—which bodies seldom are—the Minister will not be bound by any of its decisions. That seems to me a very unsatisfactory position. I have been prevented by the Rules of Order from trying to seek a compromise, but I would ask the Minister and his fellow-members of the Government to think over Clause 1, and to see whether the powers which the Minister wishes to have cannot be fitted within the framework of the existing local government system.
It may well be that 1,469 authorities are too many to exercise the powers coming under Clause 1, but there are other bodies. Hand them over to the county councils and the county borough councils. That would mean merely 290 bodies to administer the Act. Then it should be possible for the Government to secure a high degree of uniformity in regard to clean milk, and, at the same time, to retain the democratic spirit. There is a danger in the Minister and ourselves getting at cross-purposes in this matter. The Minister at times took up what was, to


my mind, a rather autocratic attitude. He was using arguments which those who have read the history of Italy while Mussolini was in power would recognise as being the same as Mussolini used. I would ask the Minister, whom I know to be no autocrat but a very good debater; to reconsider some of the things he said, and to try to use the English method of compromise. Why not withdraw this Clause, and hand over the powers to the county councils and county borough councils? He will not deny that those authorities are very efficient bodies, and bodies with which not only he but, during the war, his county war agricultural executive committees are constantly working. What is to happen after the war, if he rejects this system of compromise, when the county war agricultural executive committees pass to their natural demise, and he is dealing with the county councils and county borough councils. The result will be a complete muddle. You will have the agricultural committees of the county councils dealing with some matters, and the veterinary and sanitary inspectors of the Minister—if he can get them—dealing with other problems. It would be better for him to try to work with the county councils, and hot to oppose them.
This will probably be the last opportunity we shall have to make an appeal to the Minister, on this Clause, although there may be an opportunity on the Report stage. It is a reasonable request that he should reconsider the matter and give the county councils and the county borough councils the right to administer matters coming under this Bill. The Minister has said to the Committee that there is no question of a man losing his livelihood, but what about those dairy farmers who are producer-retailers? They are not different from any other tradesman, because, if you are a producer-retailer, your milk round is taken away from you. If there is any ground for believing that a producer-retailer is selling unclean milk, I should be the first to ask that he should not be registered, but I do ask that, if that happens, he shall have the right of appeal.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have already had a very long discussion on the right of appeal. I have given the hon. Gentleman a fair latitude on the Ruling given earlier to-day, and I hope we will

now leave the question of appeals out of this Clause.

Mr. Levy: On a point of Order. The question of appeal is of the utmost importance on the question of whether this Clause should or should not stand part of the Bill. While I am prepared to accept the fact that there has been a Debate and several hon. Members have spoken, I myself, representing a number of dairy farmers in my constituency, did not catch your eye during the earlier stage, because a great number of hon. Members were anxious to divide. Am I now to be precluded from saying what I would have said—

The Deputy-Chairman: Very definitely, we cannot have two discussions on the same subject, on the same Clause on the same day.

Sir E. Grigg: With great respect, may I say that I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Williams, before the Division, but was unable to do so? Immediately before the Division the Minister made a statement which gravely affects the question of appeals. The Committee has had no opportunity of considering the effect of that statement. Is the Committee to be deprived of an opportunity of saying whether it thinks that statement justified or not?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that, once the Committee has given a decision by a vote, there is no way of raising the matter again on the same Clause. It is a very old Ruling that we cannot have two discussions on one point on the same day.

. Mr. Levy: Are we to understand from your Ruling, Mr. Williams, that if a number of Amendments are put down to the Clause and those Amendments are discussed, even though the question of the Clause standing part obviously must embody and include some observations regarding those Amendments, none of the arguments relating to them can be referred to? If that is so, any discussion of the Clause standing part obviously becomes a farce.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not so, because the Amendments do not cover every point in the Clause. The fact remains that, where you have an Amendment discussing a matter of principle,


such as we are now discussing, you cannot, on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," re-discuss the whole of that principle. I am referring to the fact that there has been a discussion, and I am saying that we cannot go into it again.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not suggest that we should cover the ground already covered. But the statement made by the Minister just before the Division does, in fact, raise an entirely new issue, and it is very germane to the question whether or not an hon. Member of this Committee is justified in voting that the Clause stand part. That is the point that many hon. Members desire to raise.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we must be quite clear on this point that, if the Minister raised the point, the Committee could have discussed it then, but this question of appeal has been settled by this Committee and it is not in Order to raise it again on the Motion that the Clause stand part. That has been ruled again and again.

Mr. Turton: I can see that to repeat the argument used about the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh North (Mr. Erskine-Hill) would be clearly out of Order, but surely it is in Order to discuss the result of what the Minister has promised to do on this Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is the point. It is not only a matter of repetition of arguments used, but a matter of discussing again a point which has already been definitely settled by the Committee.

Mr. Turton: What the Minister has undertaken to do cannot, surely, be said to be definitely settled. The Minister gave certain undertakings—

The Deputy-Chairman: That may very well be so, but I have said already that that was on a former Amendment, and we are now discussing the Clause.

Mr. Levy: I ask the indulgence of the Committee for raising this, but it is a fundamental question of constitutional principle. We discuss various Amendments on the Committee stage. In those discussions, an hon. Member desires to express his view, because it affects his

constituency, on the question of the Clause standing part. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Williams, you now rule that an hon. Member is not entitled to give an expression of opinon how this Clause will affect his constituency. That is depriving him, if I may say so, with very great respect and humility, of the rights and liberties of speech in this Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the case at all. It is not a matter of liberty of speech. If we are to have any sort of order on a Committee stage, we cannot possibly have points which have already been discussed on an Amendment, discussed over again. That has always been the Rule, and I must ask hon. Members not to continue to dispute a Ruling which is quite well known in this House.

Sir E. Grigg: With great respect, Mr. Williams, there is no suggestion whatever of disputing the Ruling which you have given, which is quite well known in the House, but the issue is, not whether that Ruling is not absolutely correct, but whether the right hon. Gentleman has not made a statement which raises an entirely new issue. Although several hon. Members rose in their places, they were not able to catch your eye, and so we have had no opportunity of discussing how the statement affects the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill. It is an entirely new issue, and we have had no opportunity of discussing it.

The Deputy-Chairman: May I put it in this way? Suppose there had been a closure on this point, which has been discussed and settled. Because an hon. Gentleman did not happen to get in at that time, he could not possibly bring it up again on the Question of the Clause standing part. It may be that some hon. Members feel that they should have discussed it then, but I must definitely stick to the Rule, which is an old Rule, that you cannot have a second discussion, on the Question that the Clause stand part, on a point of principle which has already been decided.

Mr. Turton: I, naturally, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and will endeavour not to offend against it in future. The number of local authorities, if you confine these duties to the county councils and the county boroughs, is 144, not 290, as I said earlier. This appears to me to


be a considerable reduction—from 1,465 authorities to 144, and that is a compromise which I would urge the Committee and the Minister to consider, especially when we consider the parallel with Scotland. In Scotland, the Minister does not apply Clause r of this Bill. In Scotland, they are using, and are intended, under this Bill, to use, the existing large local authorities—the county boroughs and the major health authorities, and it is interesting to note what the Government say in the White Paper on this matter:
It is not, however, considered necessary to transfer from the local authorities to a central authority their functions in regard to the inspection of dairy premises. In Scotland, the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, transferred to the major health authorities (County Councils and large burghs, 55 in number) all powers and duties under milk legislation, and accordingly these are not, as in England, dispersed among a multiplicity of minor authorities. In general"—
and I draw the attention of the Committee to this—
a reasonably good standard of administration is maintained.
That is in Scotland. That is carried out by the large local authorities and I would commend it to the Committee and the Minister in preference to the measure under Clause r of the Bill. The same method of the large boroughs and county councils, for which I am asking for England as well as for Scotland, applies to the other branches of local legislation, to questions dealing with meat, slaughterhouses and water supply, in which the Government have entrusted the power of looking after the expenditure to the county councils and to the county boroughs.
Here in this Bill we are to make one exception. Why? I would like the Minister when he deals with the justification of Clause 1 to answer that question. Are we to understand that he is only dissatisfied with the low standard of certain authorities, or is it also that some agricultural interests have the standard too high in some areas? I have received two messages from the National Farmers' Union. One asks me to vote for the Bill in Committee and to move Amendments, and the other to vote against the Bill in Committee and move as many Amendments as I can. One came from the central body in London and is signed by Mr. Knowles, the President, and Mr. Thomas Baxter, who is his ally, and the other came from the chairman and secre-

tary of my own county executive. I need hardly say which is which, but in case there should be any doubt, I will read out what Mr. Knowles and Mr. Baxter said about this question. They talk about some areas not being cleaned up, and they go on to say:
The tendency in other areas has been for the sanitary inspector to require buildings to conform to a rigid predetermined structural standard and to pay little attention to other factors which make for the production of milk of good quality.
And they say further:
Certain counties have insisted upon an extremely high standard of building requirements before considering the issue of a licence.
I gather that certain counties, and I include my own county, as we are one of those affected, have set too high a standard for this central body of the National Farmers' Union. It is because of that fact that certain authorities like the rural district council I mentioned has inspections three or four times a year, that the Minister is creating a uniform standard which is a lower standard. Hon. Members talk about pure milk and health, but are they sure that Clause 1 will give them cleaner and purer milk and greater health than the high standard of some of these good local authorities? I believe that we should be guided by the standard of these areas, whether in the West or the extreme North, including the area of my own county. I am not referring to the North Riding only, and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) reminds me that in the West Riding they take great care with regard to their high standard of milk. The standard of these good authorities ought to be used rather than that we should put this power into the hands of the Minister.
Before I came to the Committee stage of the Bill, I received a paper signed by the National Farmers' Union and Milk Marketing Board, telling me not to move any Amendments against the Bill and that they did not like the standard in certain areas, and then we hear, on one of the Amendments, a proposal made that the panel body to determine these matters is to be composed of the Minister's official, the Milk Marketing Board and members of the National Farmers' Union. It is very unwise for any such body to send out a notice to Members of Parliament


telling them not to move Amendments to the Bill, and I would suggest to the National Farmers' Union that it would be wiser if they consulted their county areas and found out their position before coming to such a decision.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is difficult to find out how this is related to Clause 1. May I suggest to the hon. Member that, as he has given his illustration, he should leave it at that? May I also remind the Committee of the earlier Ruling, and say that although hon. Members can discuss the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, I hope we shall not have a series of Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Turton: I will obey your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I ask the Committee not to pass Clause I. To reject it would be a great blow against the spread of bureaucracy and against the insidious attack on local authorities. I regret to have to give the Committee that advice in opposition to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. It is not his fault that he is the spearhead of the attack, but this is a Clause which is robbing local authorities of their powers, and I ask the Committee not to pass it.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I rise to support the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the powers that are being exercised by the good local authorities should not be taken away from them. I come, as the Minister knows, from a constituency which is a large milk-producing area in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I believe he will agree that the West Riding County Council has as high a standard of milk inspection as can be found in the country. It is a retrograde step that these powers should be taken from them and transferred to someone else without any real case having been made out for such a step. I have talked to several of the rural district councils in my constituency, and I do not think they would object to the transfer of powers from themselves to the county council.
A matter of principle is involved but I do not think that the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," is the occasion on which to discuss the broad principle of the powers of local authori-

ties. That is another matter on which I have my own views, particularly as I have spent most of my working life in local government service. Here we have a specific case. There are good local authorities like the West Riding County Council which set as high a standard as possible. There is a case for unification and tidying up of legislation and the powers should be transferred to the county councils. The argument put forward in support of the Clause that there are bad local authorities and county councils is not one which would bear any examination. The necessity of planning on a national scale means that we have to overhaul our democracy, and if we have to face the position in some cases that our local authorities are bad, the remedy is to improve them. Unless we do that, we shall find difficulties all along the line. So I wish to add my plea to that made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton to the Minister, that he will think before he takes away from authorities such as the West Riding County Council the powers they possess.

Mr. Levy: I am going to respect your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and will not mention the word "appeals" but I may say that I have a large number of dairy farmers and milk producer-retailers in my constituency. I am one of those who have fought, and who intend to go on fighting, against bureaucracy, against dictatorship, against delegated legislation. This is bureaucracy, this is delegated legislation of the very worst type. The Minister takes over to himself in this Clause a complete dictatorship.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman said he was not going to mention the word "appeals." The question of dictatorship by the Minister was brought in a great deal earlier to-day, and it does not really matter whether the hon. Member mentions the word "appeals" or not. We should keep to the spirit of the Rules of this House, and on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we should not seek, in some indirect way, to have a long discussion on a matter which we decided by a division. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) will not make the speech which he might have made, and will accept the decision of the Committee.

Mr. Levy: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Williams. May I put this point now for information? On this Clause there comes in the question of delegated legislation. The Minister delegates part of his authority to his officials and the authority—the aggrieved party if they are aggrieved—have no right of appeal anywhere. Forgive me for mentioning the word "appeal." Am I in Order in dealing with that, or is it to be said that I am out of Order?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman would have been perfectly right in dealing with it earlier to-day, but the time has passed when he could do so. I am sorry for his disappointment, no one more so, but I must keep to the Rules of the Committee.

Mr. Levy: I want to show, if I am permitted—and I hope I have had some experience in the years during which I have had the honour to be a Member of the House of Commons—that this Clause is undesirable in the interests of my constituents. That is what they sent me here for. They sent me here, with great respect, Mr. Williams, to approve that which is considered to be in the interests of the constituency, and to voice anything which in my opinion is detrimental to any of my constituents. That is what Members of Parliament are elected for.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause does not deal with why Members of Parliament are elected. If I may say so, with respect to the Committee, we are now in the position in regard to this particular matter that we have made a decision. Some people are always disappointed at not having a chance of saying more on a decision which has taken place. I feel sure, however, the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) will realise my difficulty, but I have to accept the Rules of Order just as the whole Committee has to do, and I hope he will not endeavour to speak on something which obviously must be beyond the Rules.

Mr. Levy: I wonder if it would be in Order to make a quotation, which is classical, from one of our greatest Prime Ministers—I am not under-estimating our present Prime Minister. Disraeli said that when we were elected to Parliament, we were handed on a heritage to maintain

and improve and that, when we passed, we should leave it not worse but better than we found it.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a very nice quotation for a suitable occasion, but this Bill refers to 1944, and the constitution of this Committee does not provide for what Disraeli or anyone else said years ago about the Constitution. I cannot really allow the hon. Gentleman to go on quoting Disraeli—I may have someone else quoting Gladstone.

Mr. Levy: Am I out of Order in developing an argument in order to show that this Clause is undesirable, and not in the interests of the milk industry as such? I ask your guidance, Mr. Williams, whether I shall be out of Order, if I endeavour, by illustration, to develop an argument to show that this is an undesirable Clause. If you rule that I have no right to do so, then I will not go further.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not ruled that the hon. Gentleman has no right to speak on this Clause; he obviously can. What I have ruled, and what I think the Committee understands pretty well, is that he cannot go on discussing the question of appeal to the Minister, or to another authority. He cannot go on discussing that in a direct or an indirect way. He can discuss other aspects of the Clause.

Mr. Levy: You have certainly, Mr. Williams, given us a very elaborate dissertation as to what we cannot speak upon. Now will you be good enough, for the guidance of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] What is wrong? I am asking with great respect and humility. Every sentence that I have uttered so far has been ruled out of Order, and I cannot continue. Is it unseemly, is it discourteous, to ask the Chair to give some indication of what one can say on a Clause of this kind?

The Deputy-Chairman: The request is perfectly courteous but I should like to assure the hon. Member that it is difficult enough to keep hon. Members in Order, without having to make their speeches for them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I rise to address this Committee with some trepidation in view of the Rulings that you have


given, Mr. Williams, but there is one point which is troubling me. We are being asked to discuss, and to approve this Clause standing part of the Bill. I do not want to go over ground which has been covered already to-day, and I accept the conclusion of the Committee with regard to that Amendment. But in the course of that discussion—I think I can refer to it without disrespect and without being out of Order—the Minister made certain concessions. The substance of those concessions shows, quite clearly, that the Clause as it now stands does not express the Government's intentions at all. What I am wondering—you will tell me, I am sure, Mr. Williams, if I am out of Order—is whether we should not oppose this Clause standing part because, if it does stand part, it does not carry out the Government's intentions. Also may I have your guidance on when, and in what manner, we might have an opportunity of discussing the Amendments which the Minister will have to put down, to carry out the concessions which he has indicated? I accept the decision which has been arrived at, and I would particularly like to know in what form the setting up of this appellate tribunal will be phrased in the Bill, and whether there will be an opportunity of putting down an Amendment to it, to provide that the decision of that tribunal, if unanimous, should be communicated to the appellant. I should also like to know whether or not it is provided that the hearing of that tribunal shall be in public—

The Deputy-Chairman: So far as the Minister's' Amendment is concerned we must wait until that comes, and so far as the discussion as to whether the appeal will be in public is concerned that would be a matter for a future Amendment, or for the tribunal, one or the other. I do not think that point can come in here.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was mentioning something that the Minister has said, something not arising out of the decision which has been arrived at, with a view to pointing my argument, that it would be inconsistent for us that the Clause should stand part of the Bill, because if it did it would not carry out the Minister's present intentions.

Mr. Burden: I profoundly regret the terms of this Clause

inasmuch as it appears to be taking away the powers of local authorities. This is yet another instance of the sapping and undermining of the powers and responsibilities of local authorities, and the time is rapidly approaching when the situation will have to be met. If this process is continued, all that will be left to local authorities will be power to erect public conveniences, subject to the consent of the Minister of Health as to siting. That is where we are getting in connection with reconstruction, and it is time we woke up to the responsibilities of this House. This proposal is flying in the teeth of the opposition of great national associations of county councils and county boroughs, which represent local government. The Government refuse to tackle the problem of re-organisation of local government, which is essential. That there is a case for such re-organisation we all agree. The Government are not treating the local authorities fairly in these matters, because, one by one, their responsibilities are being taken away from them.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not propose to detain the Committee long but there are one or two points on which I should be glad of a little enlightenment from my right hon. Friend before this Clause becomes part of the Bill. With regard to the concession which was made a short time ago, before the Committee divided, it is of some importance to us to know whether some of the Amendments which will be involved will be moved in this House, at a later stage, or in another place, because I think this Committee, or the House, should have an opportunity of discussing them. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that the Amendment which he has in mind, which is extremely important, will come before the House of Commons and will not merely be produced in another place. I think that on that point I have the sympathy of Members in all parts of the Committee, whether they have agreed or not with the views I have already expressed in this discussion.
The other point I would like to raise was put forward by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), who, I thought, made a timely reference to the effect of this Clause on local authorities. We know that the Minister has to meet great difficulties. Everybody knows that a great many local authorities have fallen much below the standard they


ought to have maintained, for reasons which are not brought to light. But I do not believe that the remedy is to centralise everything in Whitehall. I think the remedy is to deal with our system of local government. This Clause is one more sample of what is going on, in connection with the system of local government—without going into the question of whether local government as a whole should not now be reconsidered and reformed. This Clause is one part of the steady undermining of local government in this country—

The Chairman (Major Milner): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member but I understand that he is now coming to his peroration.

Sir E. Grigg: No, I was putting a point which has been put by several other Members and I presume I am in Order in referring to it.

The Chairman: The position is that the principle has been decided on the Second Reading of this Bill, and it is not therefore possible to develop an argument on what has already been decided.

Sir E. Grigg: We have had two arguments which have been developed on that subject and I find it difficult to understand why I should be out of Order while two other Members were not. The changes that take place in the occupancy of the Chair make it rather difficult.

The Chairman: No, the changes are due to the hon. Member going further than other hon. Members went.

Sir E. Grigg: I was endeavouring to keep within the limits which other Members have preserved. It is difficult to know what the limits are, and I should be grateful, Major Milner, if you could give me an indication of what they are so that I shall show in my further remarks the greatest possible respect for your Ruling.

The Chairman: As has lately been said, the Chair cannot make the speeches of hon. Members; it can only give a general indication and I rely upon hon. Members to adhere to that Ruling.

Mr. MacLaren: On a point of Order. The position is not clear, Major Milner. It was ruled just now that no references should be made, in further

speeches, to the question of appeal. One can understand that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) is now denouncing the spirit of the Clause. He is not discussing the point which, it has now been ruled, cannot be discussed.

The Chairman: I am not clear that that is so. The point of my Ruling is that we cannot enter into a detailed discussion in Committee, on a principle already decided on the Second Reading. That is the settled Rule of the House.

Sir E. Grigg: I presume that the Committee is entitled to discuss the general spirit of the Clause. If they cannot discuss that, I do not know what they can discuss. That, surely, is the whole point of the discussion.

The Chairman: We cannot have a dissertation about local government in general. That clearly cannot come within the purview of a Motion that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Cove: Is it in Order to use this as a specific case for the overhaul of all local government?

The Chairman: Certainly not.

Captain Sir William Brass: Would it be possible for you, Major Milner, to indicate exactly what we can discuss? What is the object of having a discussion on the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill if we cannot know from the Chair what parts of the Clause we can discuss?

The Chairman: There are many other matters in the Clause than the one of principle, and it is perfectly competent for hon. Members to discuss them.

Mr. Mathers: Has it become clear to you, Major Milner, as it was becoming clear to your predecessor in the Chair, that a very successful attempt at obstruction is going on?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not in Order, although the principle may have been settled on Second Reading, to discuss at this stage the detailed application of that principle to the phraseology in the Clause?

The Chairman: I should have to know the form of the detailed discussion before I could answer that question.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: As I understand it, the Clause has certain effects. The first is to amend Section 20 of the principal Act. Am I not to be allowed, if I wish, to discuss the effect of amending that Clause? As I understand it, it strikes at the root of certain rights which have been exercised for many years by local authorities, and that is what my trouble is and, I believe that of many others. Will you be good enough to indicate, Major Milner, why we cannot discuss the effect on existing authorities of the Clause standing part?

The Chairman: Within limits it is possible to do so.

Sir E. Grigg: After the long discussion that has taken place, I will not go back on my previous attempt to discuss the broader question of local government. I did not intend to do so. I only endeavoured to point out that the Clause is, in effect, an attack on local government, part of a very much wider attack which I very much regret, and to which I think the Committee should pay attention. I will discuss the spirit of the Clause and the effect that it is likely to have on the purpose of the Bill, which is to produce cleaner milk. I believe that, in order to get it, you must get it in the way you get all good things, and that is by cooperation and team work. That is what we are not going to get under the system proposed in the Clause. What are the difficulties under which farmers suffer at present, and will they be helped by the Clause? I should say that one of the first which the Minister will find when he attempts to apply the Clause is lack of cheap capital. Many improvements could be made to-morrow if farmers had the means. My right hon. Friend will find that that difficulty exists just the same in spite of the powers he is taking. The next thing is water. If he provides water, he will find it very much easier to get the milk. If he will give more labour it will be easier to get the milk.

Earl Winterton: Is my hon. Friend speaking now on behalf of agriculture? I understand that the National Farmers Union are in favour of the Clause.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not understand the point my noble Friend has put.

Earl Winterton: My hon. Friend was speaking, with the great authority and

knowledge that he has on every subject, and I understood he was speaking on behalf of the agricultural community.

Sir E. Grigg: No, I said nothing of the kind. I believe that, if these things were attended to, my right hon. Friend would have no case for taking these powers away from local authorities. He says, "I am responsible, therefore I must have the power." In 1933 no less a person than Herr Hitler said, "I will remove unemployment if you will give me the power." Any Minister who sets out to carry out any responsibilities must carry them out in the spirit of the Constitution of the country, under the system which has been built up over many generations and centuries, and it is because this Clause offends against that principle, because it seems to be an attack on that spirit, because it seems to be an attempt to get the Government of the country, local and otherwise, in support of a system which is Fascist, that I will not willingly see a Clause of this kind incorporated in any Bill.
The local authorities will give the cooperation and the team work if you help them. They are not being treated fairly at present. A great deal of money is going to be spent under the Bill and it might just as well be given to the local authorities, who lack funds, so as to enable them to do their job. My right hon. Friend may say the local authorities will not do it, and there are other causes at work which will prevent them carrying out the inspection and the regulations required to produce good milk. I would say, Take power to suspend them but do not undermine their existence and deprive them of all utility. Powers to suspend local authorities exist, and they can be strengthened if they are not strong enough. The refusal to work through local authorities is, in my opinion, undermining the system of responsible government under which we have been living for generations past, and it will also undermine the authority of this Parliament.

Mr. John Dugdale: I do not intend to join in this filibustering campaign. I have pleasure in supporting the Minister, all the more because we have been asked to support the Government at this moment when the Second Front has been started. I want to raise one


question. I represent a constituency consisting mainly of consumers of milk, who are, therefore, more interested in the quality of the milk than in the position and the rights of the individual farmer. In my constituency there happen, however, to be a handful of farmers, 15 or 20. I welcome this Clause in so far as it will improve the milk supply from outside to my constituency. In regard to these farmers, however, we happen to have a standard of inspection that is very high, much higher than that which the Minister proposes. I want to know what guarantee we can get that that standard of inspection will be as high under the Minister as it is under our own local authority.

Captain Cobb: I want to ask the Minister a question for my own information. Why are the producer and the retailer to be treated differently under this Clause? If I proposed to become a dairy farmer, I should be subject to the Minister of Agriculture, but if I proposed to become a retailer and to buy my milk from a producer, I should be subject to the local authority. Milk can, surely, be dirty milk, either because of the way in which it is produced, or because of the conditions in which it is kept in the retail premises. It appears that the Minister is not satisfied that the local authorities are doing their stuff where the producer is concerned, but he appears to be satisfied with the local authorities' administration where the retail end of the trade is concerned. I would like to ask him what are the facts which made him arrive at this conclusion.

Earl Winterton: I do not want to intervene in the controversy that has taken place between my hon. Friends opposite and the Minister. I am not concerned with the views of one or the other on the subject of local authorities. The only reason I rise is the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). He is, of course, entitled to put with the greatest fervour, as he did, his view on the effect of this Clause on the production of milk, but the views of those who are diametrically opposed to his views should also go out. As far as I know, no authorised body representing agriculture has suggested that the Clause would have the effect which has been put forward. After a long process of time, largely as a result of the action my right hon. Friend has very properly taken, the agricultural community has strongly sup-

ported the principle of a universal supply of clean milk. That is the reason for this Clause. If any of those who oppose the Bill differ from that view, let them say so, but it would be unfortunate if it went out that any agricultural interest objected to the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham used the argument that this Clause would mean heavy capital expenditure. I do not know whether he is speaking for the farmers in those counties where the local authorities have not done their duty. My constituents in the South of England, who have been properly submitted to a high standard of regulation, will not suffer from this Bill, and I see no reason why, because some people think that this is an inroad into the powers of local authorities, my constituents should be handicapped in competition with the constituents of those hon. Gentlemen who represent constituencies where the local authorities have not had the same regulations for ensuring clean milk as we have had in the South of England.

Sir E. Grigg: I have no more power to speak for the agricultural industry than my Noble Friend has. None of us can say that this or that is the opinion of the farmers or labourers. I have received very diverse opinions, and I do not regard the bodies which have been trying to carry out some propaganda in this matter as being necessarily representative. I did not attempt to say that I was representing agricultural opinion. I am representing only my own opinion of what I think is good for agriculture. My Noble Friend misunderstood me when I spoke about expenditure. I spoke about the expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman would incur under this Bill. It is not capital expenditure mainly, but expenditure on the service which he will have to maintain of inspectors and the rest. One of the difficulties of the local authorities is that they have not been able to meet that expenditure, and the suggestion I made had nothing to do with capital expenditure. It was that if funds were made available to local authorities and sufficient control were kept over them to see that they did their job, this matter would be better done by them than by officials appointed from Whitehall.

Mr. G. Griffiths: On the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke against Clause I


and one or two other Clauses. I have been surprised to-day at the fierceness of the attitude of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir. E. Grigg). He has been like a roaring lion, but when he was on the Front Bench he was like a cooing dove. I agree with a lot that has been said about filching the powers of local authorities. The local authorities, whether the right hon. Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) believes it or not, are against Clause 1. The county councils, the urban councils and the rural councils are against it because powers are being taken away from them bit by bit. The rural council in my division has had a standard of milk supply and of inspection of cattle as high as, if not higher than, any other rural council. If other local authorities have neglected their duties or carried them out in a lackadaisical way, why should we be victimised? That is my grievance, but I have not known a Minister go so far as the Minister of Agriculturt has gone to meet the opponents of this Clause. That was why I felt I could go into the "Ayes" Lobby in the Division, and I will go back to Hemsworth and tell them why. [Interruption.] I have not hoodwinked them. It is the hon. Members opposite who have been trying to hoodwink the Minister all day. I want to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) a question. Is he now going to press this matter to a Division? If not, let us clear it away and get on with the next business.

Mr. Hudson: We have now been on this Clause for just on six hours. I do not know whether I can add anything to relieve the apprehension of some hon. Members. I hope I can send the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) back somewhat reconciled—

Mr. G. Griffiths: I do not want to lose the next election, you know. I had only 21,000 majority.

Mr. Hudson: Nearly as many as I had. During the Debate on the Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health promised that we would look into the question to see what we could do in the way of increasing co-operation with local authorities. It must be clear to everybody, and it is certainly clear to me, that we have to work in with

local authorities throughout the country, if we are to achieve what we have in mind. I was, to speak quite frankly, rather taken, at first, with the idea of delegating these powers to the county councils. We have heard a good many attacks against the idea of filching powers from local authorities; perhaps it is as well to remind the Committee that we had a great many speakers on behalf of county councils suggesting that powers should be filched from smaller authorities and transferred to them. I have always understood that robbery did not differ in degree according to the status of the thief, but the county Members are quite prepared to receive powers filched by me from other authorities and transferred to them, while they protest very strongly when I suggest taking any powers from them.
When we come to examine the question of delegation of powers to local authorities we are exposed to two difficulties. First of all, it is highly invidious for any Minister to have to choose between, say, the local authority of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, which is no doubt doing its job extremely well, and some other local authorities. Perhaps I had better not specify the constituencies. Anyhow, it is clear that a number of local authorities are not doing their job. It would be impracticable, in any case, for the Minister to say: "I will delegate to one county council and I will not delegate to another." Even if we could get over that difficulty we should be up against the other difficulty that once we had delegated the powers we could never recover them. Although, in theory, the Ministry of Health has power to take over the administration of local authorities, it has proved impracticable to do so in fact. Hon. Members will remember the trouble we had in taking over the West Ham guardians; imagine what trouble a Minister of Agriculture would have in taking over the powers of a county council because they were not conducting their milk inspection properly. It would be wrong to start a further bureaucracy of inspectors to inspect the inspectors of a county council.
I have come to the conclusion that it just is not practicable, therefore, but I have a further suggestion to make which I think is practicable. I propose to set up, assuming that the Bill goes through,


in every county a county advisory committee and I would propose that this committee should consist, broadly speaking, of my veterinary representative, probably someone with the qualifications of a sanitary inspector, the medical officer of health for the county, some representatives of the local authority and also probably one or two members to represent the smaller authorities—if this could be agreed on—probably a member of the Milk Marketing Board and of the National Farmers' Union, and a member of the county war agricultural executive committee or whatever its post-war successor may be. I would propose to appoint that committee as a general supervisory committee over the administration of the milk regulations in the particular county. Further, I would propose to set up a Central Advisory Committee in London, containing representatives from those various county committees.

Sir H. Williams: Who will appoint them?

Mr. Hudson: I will appoint them. The medical officer of health obviously will be the medical officer of the county. One of the difficulties with which we are going to be faced is not only the great lack of uniformity which exists to-day, and which was given expression to during the Debate but with great arrears of maintenace, questions such as bringing buildings up to date and laying on water supplies, and I want to try to see whether we can get a body of local opinion as to what is practicable in the circumstances. After all, the rate of progress that we shall be able to make will depend very largely on the materials and labour available in the first four or five years after the war. I am very anxious that the best use shall be made of them. I am willing to admit that a number of local authorities have carried out their job extremely well, but equally there are others who claim that they have carried out their job very well, whereas the very excellence and rigidity of food by-laws may prove to be a source not of progress but of hindrance in the difficult period after the war, when we shall have to make the best of what we have. I want to get agreement not only among authorities in the counties but among adjoining counties, so as to make the best of conditions in view of the labour and materials that will then be available.

Mr. Turton: Does that mean that there will be a lower standard?

Mr. Hudson: I did not say there would be a lower standard. The standard I am aiming at is an improvement, and the provision of clean milk. I know of individual cases where a man, who has in every way a very good herd—has got his herd T.T. and everything—has yet been told that he cannot have a T.T. licence because his window is three inches too high or too low. That is the sort of practical question which I hope will be decided round the table between these various authorities, so that we shall get something practical and can go ahead. It does not mean that we shall reduce our standard of production, but it does mean that we shall approach these matters in a realistic spirit. I hope, after this explanation, that we can now pass the Clause.

Mr. Levy: When we were discussing rural water supplies I understood the Minister to say that they were essential to clean milk and to the dairy farmer, but that he did not expect to give a water supply to agriculture because it was not to start until after the war and until the fund by the ratepayers was available. If that is right, would the Minister be good enough to tell me whether the powers, which he is taking are to be exercised before the supply of water or after the water supply has been given to the dairy farmer, in order that the dairy farmer can comply with the rules and Regulations? Alternatively, is the Minister going to say, "I will not grant you a licence because you cannot comply with the Regulations, and put the man out of business entirely? If so, the water supply will be quite redundant, and that will save a good deal of money. Perhaps my right hon Friend will answer that point.

Mr. Hudson: I apologise. I promised the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks) that I would deal with the point on which he wanted to move an Amendment. I do not think the Amendment he wished to move is really necessary, because in any case local authorities will make representations to the Ministry if they find that the milk supply from a particular firm is not up to the mark. I want to work in the closest possible touch with the local authorities, but I am in some difficulty because the Amendment only


appeared on the Order Paper to-day. Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to discuss the matter with him later, and I will see if I can get an Amendment inserted, in another place.
As regards the question of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), of course we are going to be reasonable. Indeed the provision for appeal I announced to-day will force me to be reasonable. What I say frankly is that if a man has not got a water supply now, and the only water supply is at present say the overflow of the cesspool, and he applies for registration to produce milk I shall say "No" until such time as a water supply is laid on and he complies with the other regulations. Then we shall re-open the question of giving him a permit.

Sir E. Grigg: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would contemplate appointing a committee of which he described the character. I understood him to say that among these committees would be representatives of the councils—the county council and the rural district councils, the borough councils and so on. He said he would appoint them himself, but I presume that the county council and the other local authorities would select their own members, and that it would not be a question of appointment by the Minister in those cases?

Mr. Hudson: Only in the sense that I should say to the county council, for example, "Will you appoint two members?"

Sir E. Grigg: rose—

The Chairman: The hon. Member has already made a good many interpolations. I think other hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak.

Sir H. Williams: Since I moved my Amendment earlier other engagements have prevented me from being here. I understand the Minister has given some promise that all the existing people will be registered. That does not satisfy me in the least. I want every human being in this country to start in any occupation he likes. Make any rules you like in advance, publish any regulations, and say "These are the rules if you apply to come." But the Minister is taking power to exclude a person from selecting his own

job. That is a fundamental political issue, on which some of us may have to make a big fight at the next Election. It is the fundamental issue of liberty, on which this war is being fought—the whole issue of Fascism and Communism. We have to see what the proposals of the Minister are. I understand he has given the minor concession that, if you are in, you will be allowed to stay in, unless your registration is later cancelled, but that no new person is to be free to become the owner of a cow in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If he has a cow he must not sell any of the cow's milk to anybody else. Obviously that is what it means. The words are:
carry on the trade of dairymen.
A dairyman is a man who sells milk. If I sell the produce of my own cow I am a dairyman. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, a dairy farmer."] No, I am also a dairyman. I am both producer and merchant all in one. By what right have United Dairies or the Express Dairy the right to say that I am not to be a dairyman? It is a fundamental issue of liberty on which I shall fight the Government on every Bill they bring in. What is the use of telling the men overseas that this war is being fought for liberty, if after the war, if there is a land settlement scheme, possibly, as after the last war, we shall have a position in which one Department says, "We shall settle you on the land" and another says, "You cannot sell your produce." I was brought up in the country. We owned three cows. The bulk of the water supply was from the village pond. And thank God I am not tuberculous. There is a lot of nonsense talked about this. The Clause says that the Minister may make Regulations under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the principal Act, that is, the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. I assume that this Bill is to be read with that Act, and that they will be cited as one Act. The regulation-making power would be properly prescribed in the 1938 Act, but if anyone thinks he has the law when he has this document and the Act of 1938 in front of him he is under a great delusion. How much do they provide for delegated legislation? Section 96 reads:
The following provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, shall be deemed to be incorporated in this Act, that is to say:—
Then is a list. We come to Section 319:


(Provisions as to regulations required to be laid before Parliament);
In order to find what are the conditions you have to take these three documents, and thus we shall come to legislation twice removed if the Minister has his way. That Section says:
Where any regulation is required by this Act to be laid before Parliament, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days during the Session of Parliament and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House before the expiration of that period praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation.
These regulations are obviously going to be very important to those affected.
This is not war-time legislation where you have to take certain action, where you have to lock up somebody because you do not like his politics, or something like that. This is permanent peace-time regulation. The Minister is going to do the bulk of his stuff by regulation. This Session of Parliament may conclude about the end of next month. This Bill may be law by then. It may be that the Minister has his regulations nicely in draft already. He may lay them on 1st August, providing that is a day on which they can be laid, or he may make them just after Parliament has risen. We may be in recess for about six weeks—I do not know what view the Patronage Secretary has on that. During these six weeks, all these regulations will be in operation, never having been discussed. It is not proposed that they shall be laid and, at the end of 30 days, if there is no Prayer for their annulment, they shall come into operation. They will come into operation forthwith.
Regulations of this kind are going to affect many hundreds of thousands of people in their day to day work. Farmers, dairymen, every person working on a farm where cattle are kept, are going to be subject to regulations which will come into operation the moment they are made, and which this House may have no opportunity of challenging for weeks while they are operative. I think that is a form of delegation which goes too far. I hope that before this Bill becomes law it will contain its own Clause about delegation instead of doing it by reference. You have to read three documents before you can find out what powers the

Minister is proposing to snatch from Parliament, in order that he can impose his will, to a large extent unchallenged, on many hundreds of thousands of His Majesty's subjects.

Mr. Petherick: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). If only more people in the country stood up, as he does, on every possible occasion, to give vent to their objections, as ordinary British subjects, to this form of legislation, a great many undesirable Acts of Parliament would never get on to the Statute Book. I think that he, with the help of some of us, can promise the Government, if not a first-class row, at least a pretty good second-class row, every time anything of this sort is done. I listened very carefully to the last remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He spoke in a most conciliatory, and, indeed, plausible, manner, but he gave us no concession of any kind. We are no better off than we were when we started to discuss this Clause. The only dim hint of a concession that we got was on the question of the right to refuse registration, about which I got the impression that he did not quite understand the purport of his own Bill. I do not think that the Civil Service as a whole is authoritarian. I do not think it really wants to seize power, as so many people do, in the interest of its own bureaucracy. But what I think—and we can see vestiges time after time turning up—is that the Civil Service is constantly wanting to do a certain thing, and it cannot see any way to do it except by arrogating to the Minister concerned authoritarian powers. It is the business of the Minister, when a civil servant produces a Measure of this kind, to say, "Take it away; we do not like it; do something better." There are other ways of producing clean milk and of seeing that every measure which is necessary for the public health is carried out.
I oppose this Measure for one particular reason. I have maintained, during the last two or three years, that it is wrong for the Government, in time of war, to change the structure or the functions of local authorities except for purely wartime purposes. In this case the functions of local authorities are being taken over by the Minister, and I maintain that that is wholly undesirable. The Minister


twitted my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) by suggesting that, while he was quite willing that the powers should be taken over by the county councils from the smaller authorities, he objected to the same powers being taken over by the Government. But that is not an apt gibe, because to take over powers from a rural district council and give them to an urban district council, or to take over powers from the urban and rural district councils and give them to the county councils is only transferring functions; and that transfer should, in every case, be considered on its merits. I have an Amendment down later, which I think possibly may not be called, suggesting that no such transfer of functions ought to take place in war-time until the whole matter has been considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That is infinitely preferable to a Royal Commission, because on a Joint Select Committee Members of both Houses sit in a semi-judicial capacity, calm and cold-blooded, and consider the evidence of the experts which is presented to them instead of having the experts on the Committee. I think that that is the best form of Committee for considering matters of a constitutional nature, of this kind.
I am not satisfied by my right hon. Friend's semi-offer to set up a number of advisory committees. That is the usual practice. When a Minister is accused of introducing any legislation of a semi-despotic character, he sets up an advisory committee—or, preferably, as many advisory committees as possible, in order that the matter may be confused—as a general anodyne or sedative against the objections raised against his despotic ideas. Personally, I think that these committees will be utterly worthless. They will take a number of persons, who might be doing valuable work in the various districts, away from that work, and will make them sit on committees which are of no use at all. They will be used to enable any objections to be rejected, leaving the whole matter in the hands of the Minister. Therefore, I intend, with great determination, to vote against the Clause.

Mr. Cove: It would be presumptuous for me to attempt to persuade myself that I was an authority on the detailed matters before the Committee; but the content of

this Clause has been raised to a matter of high principle, and I have had a good deal of cynical amusement from listening to the Debate. Here is the Conservative Party calling for freedom here, freedom there, private enterprise, free capital, competitive capital, an anarchic world. This is the party of tariffs. I have heard the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) claiming in this House, over and over again, that the intervention—

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, when the hon. Gentleman has spent a minute or two upon tariffs, it will be in Order for the rest of us to spend a minute or two on tariffs?

The Chairman: I have had my eye on the hon. Member. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will be good enough to leave the matter to me.

Mr. Cove: The hon. Member for South Croydon raised this into a question of totalitarianism, and charged the Minister with being associated with what I might call a Hitlerian policy. That is the way this Debate has gone on the question of getting clean, pure milk. It is absolutely and completely fantastic. Hon. Members of the Conservative Party know that it is fantastic. That party is associated with State intervention in subsidies, in tariffs, and in every way which will support private enterprise and private capital.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Nonsense.

Mr. Cove: What is the use of saying it is nonsense? They are the party of the Ottawa Agreement. It does not lie in the mouths of the Tory Party to take this attitude. The fact is that they are fighting for the rights of private property.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that we are on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cove: I am sorry; but, all through the Debate, that issue has been raised. It seems strange to me that such an attitude should be adopted on a Measure to improve the public health of this country, and for the benefit of nutrition, which will pay this nation over and over again.

Mr. Turton: Did not the hon. Member hear the Minister say that what he was out for was less rigid by-laws?

Mr. Cove: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has been round the farming areas and has been deeply impressed with the need for pure, clean milk for the health of this nation. This Clause arises out of that, and it is absolutely amazing to see that hon. Members, so much associated, as I have always understood from their policy, with State intervention and more State activity here and there, should adopt this attitude to-day. It raises in my mind a deep suspicion that, if this attitude is carried into the post-war period, the cleavage has already begun in national unity, even on a Debate of this kind to-day.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have now been more than six hours on an extremely important fundamental

Division No. 25
AYES.



Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Leighton, Major B, E. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Levy, T.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Colegate, W. A.
Maxton, J.
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Turton, R. H.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Nall, Sir J.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Petherick, M.



Greenwell, Col. T. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrineham)
Salt, E. W.
Dr. Russell Thomas and Lieut.-Colonel Dower.




NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hammersley, S. S.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dodd, J. S.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.


Apsley, Lady
Douglas, F. C. R.
Harvey, T. E.


Barr, J.
Drewe, C.
Helmore, Air Commodore W.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Henderson, J. (Ardwiok)


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-



Beechman, N. A.
Dunn, E.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beit, Sir A. L.
Eccles, D. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Benson, G.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)


Bowles, F. G.
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
James, Wing-Corn. A. (Well'borough)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.
John, W.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Fermoy, Lord
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)


Brooklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Findlay, Sir E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Foster, W.
Keeling, E. H.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Frankel, D.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gates, Major E. E.
Kirby, B. V.


Buchanan, G.
Gibbins, J.
Kirkwood, D.


Burden, T. W.
Glanville, J. E.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)


Burke, W. A.
Graham, Captain A. C.
Lipson, D. L.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Grant-Ferris, Wing Commander R.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Loverseed, J. E.


Colman, N. C. D.
Grenfell, D, R.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McKinlay, A. S.


Cove, W. G.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Maclean, N. (Govan)

issue, and, for my own part, I deeply regret that I, with other hon. Members, should have been put in the position in which I have been placed to-day and should have to insist upon voting against the Minister, in view of the line of action that he has taken. The Minister has recently made a statement of very considerable importance. I would not wish to belittle it for one second, but I suggest that, after 64 hours, we ought to have a little, time to think it over and to get in our minds clearly what we have to say, so as to see if we cannot, next week, return to this Bill and pass it quickly, and, in the interval, the Minister will be enabled to have an opportunity for further consideration.

The CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question thereupon forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 147.

McNeil, H.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Thomas, I. (Kelghley)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Mander, G. Io M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tinker, J. J.


Mathers, G.
Ritson, J.
Tree, A. R, L. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M' ham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Molson, A. H. E.
Savory, Professor D. L.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)
Watson, W. MOL.


Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Mort, D. L,
Silkin, L.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Muff, G.
Sloan, A.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Neal, H.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Neven-Spence, Mafor B. H. H.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Storey, S.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Nicolson, Hon H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Woodburn, A.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
York, Major C.


Pearson, A
Suirdale, Viscount



Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon, F. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Pym and Mr. A. S. L. Young

Original Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Turton: I do not want to delay the Committee but I would like to ask a question. Will the Minister set up county advisory committees by an Amendment of the Bill? I have great respect for the Minister, and I am sure that when he gives a promise to set up county advisory committees he will set them up, but his promise does not bind his successors. If we are to improve the Bill—as I think it should be improved—the appointment of a statutory advisory body on which local authorities will be represented will go a very little way in meeting the wishes of those who want to see the rights of local authorities preserved. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the appointment of advisory committees will be put into statutory form in the Bill, and will it be done on the Committee stage in the form of a new Clause? If the Minister is able to give such an undertaking—and I speak entirely for myself—I believe it will ease the passage of the Committee stage.

Mr. Colegate: Will the Minister also say whether he proposes to embody the suggested new appeal tribunal in the Bill or not?

Sir H. Williams: The Minister said that he was proposing to appoint a committee and I am not clear what he meant. There are certain people who sit ex officio, such as medical officers of health and veterinary surgeons, but will representatives of local authorities be appointed by the local authorities or selected by the Minister from members of local authorities? Will they be dismissible by him or not?

Mr. Levy: I put a point to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the need of a

supply of water in certain rural areas. He said that it was an extreme case, but he was not going to register or license any dairy farm where the animals were drinking putrid water.

Mr. Hudson: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Levy: Then will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what he did say? I think that the recollection of the Committee is with me. He said unwholesome stagnant water on a farm which the cows were bound to drink made it impossible to produce clean, wholesome milk, and he felt that such people should not be licensed until they were in a position, in the opinion of the regional officer, to supply good and wholesome milk, because milk is a particularly desirable and essential form of food. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say specifically whether these restrictions are to be brought in forthwith or whether they will be brought in after the rural authorities have provided the dairy farms with a clean water supply so essential for the cleansing of utensils and thus enable them to supply clean milk.

Sir E. Grigg: I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would answer the question I put earlier, which has a direct bearing on the question of the Clause standing part, and which he himself then failed to answer. Towards the end of the Debate on an Amendment, earlier in the proceedings, my right hon. Friend made a proposal for setting up a different kind of tribunal, to be appointed by himself. The question I asked was whether the Amendment setting up that tribunal would be introduced in this House or in another place; and, if it was to be introduced in another place, what opportunity we should have of discussing the very important change that he has made


in the whole bearing of this Clause? I would be very grateful if he would answer that question. He also made a very important statement—to which some of my hon. Friends have referred—about county committees. We are grateful to him for that important statement. but it is rather difficult to work out the full significance of it without having time and knowing a little more of what he intends. Can he give the Committee a little more enlightenment on one particular point which has a great deal of bearing on the way the committees are to work? Who is to preside over these committees? Is he to be an official of his own or a county official? It is important to know who is to preside over the proceedings which are to be of such prime importance to local authorities.

Mr. Hudson: These are all points, obviously, to be discussed with local authorities in due time. I have not made up my mind on these points.

Sir E. Grigg: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question whether there will be any opportunity of discussing the Amendments he has in view.

Mr. Hudson: No Amendments will be necessary. It will be possible to do this by regulation.

Sir E. Grigg: By delegated legislation?

Captain Strickland: I would like to ask the Minister what part the Minister of Health is to take if this Clause stands part. The first Sub-section says:
The power of making Milk and Dairies Regulations under section twenty of the principal Act shall, instead of being exercised by the Minister of Health, be exercised jointly by that Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Later on paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) says that the whole power of refusal or cancellation shall rest in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture alone. I would like to know whether the Ministry of Health will be called in for consultation in this matter. I understand that they may deal more specifically with the retail side of the sale of milk, but it is rather important to know whether it will be one authority or two authorities dealing with this side of the matter. We are discussing now the carrying into effect of this Clause 1, which is an essential part of this Bill, and it is laying down a new prin-

ciple by which people wishing to enter a trade or, I suppose, later on even a profession, may come under exactly the same sort of supervision by an individual Minister as the milk producers of this country. That is a very fundamental and very essential part of our manner of conducting the public affairs of this nation. We are now departing from the free rights of citizens to pick the particular line of industry in which they wish to engage and placing the whole policy of the life and liberty and the work of the citizen in the hands—

Commander King-Hall: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether there is any very great difference between these measures which are proposed and the issue of road licences, which started somewhere about 1932, and in the case of which there is no appeal to the courts against the traffic commissioner refusing to issue a licence?

Captain Strickland: I am, of course, opposed to that principle. It is the same principle which appears in this Bill, and I say it is time we in this British House of Commons stood up for the constituents we represent. It is all very well to have all these impositions on the lives of the citizens of this country, but I am opposed fundamentally to State organisation which takes control of people's lives and tells them what they have to do and how they have to do it. This is the first step, and may easily be quoted later as a precedent for establishing similar supervision over other trades. I am fundamentally opposed to it. I voice my objection now, and I say we are paying a mighty big price for the unity of this Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I did not intend to say more than a word or two, but I wish to support the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). A Division was taken, and 76 members went through that Lobby. There would have been a great many more, if it had not been for what the Minister said he was going to concede. There were. Members behind me here who would have voted against the Government, but when they were told a concession was going to be made, they withdrew their opposition. I think the hon. Member has raised a very important point. We want to know of what these committees are to consist and how they are to be established. For my right hon. Friend to say that he can do it under the


Bill as it exists is not, I think, treating the Committee as it ought to be treated. We ought to know what he intends to introduce, and he has a chance of implementing what he has promised to do.

Mr. Colegate: I would like to support the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). A great many of us were definitely under the impression that we would be offered Amendments to Clause r of the Bill on two aspects, the question of appeal and the question of the advisory committee. Now, right at the end of this Debate, when there has been plenty of time to make it clear before, we are suddenly told that this Committee is not to have a word to say on those two concessions which have been offered to us in order to make progress with the Bill. The local authorities are to be consulted, but we are not to have an opportunity. Surely that is not in the spirit of the House of Commons? We had a recent example in the Education Bill, when we were offered concession after concession. Every one of these concessions was brought before us at one stage or another, either on the Report stage or otherwise, and we had an opportunity of discussing the wording—in some cases even then the wording was altered to meet the wishes of hon. Members. Why should not the same process be adopted here? Why should the Minister of Agriculture be in this extraordinarily authoritative position where he will not meet the wishes of the Committee? It is really a very great pity and almost amounts to a breach of faith with the Committee, for it was clearly understood by the majority of hon. Members that Clause r would be amended. Hon. Members heard it. There was no doubt about it, and we all supposed that, either later in this Committee or on the Report stage, we should have a revised Clause which we could discuss and probably agree to if the concessions had been such as we hoped they would be. I appeal, even at this hour, to the Minister to withdraw his remarks. He would do far better to withdraw the whole Clause and bring it forward in its amended form a little later. Then we could get on with the Bill. That would be far the best way, and I make that appeal even now to him to withdraw his remark.

Sir H. Williams: I think the Minister is being very unwise. He has had an appeal

from several hon. Members to defend his proposals. If he wants to get on with the Bill, the thing to do is to be amiable about it. If a perfectly sensible and reasonable request has been made by at least three hon. Members to the Minister to tell us exactly what his scheme is, what is the objection? It is either that he is feeling awkward-minded or, which is much more likely, that he has not got a scheme. If he has not got a scheme it is quite easy to say, "I have made this as a concession during the proceedings. I must consider the details and I will put down a new Clause later so that hon. Members can see what is proposed and make suggestions." In answer to a question I put earlier, the Minister said he was going to appoint them. I put a further question. Someone said I had missed what he said earlier, that there would be representatives of local bodies, which conflicted with what he told me, so I was entitled to put it again. We want to know how many representatives of the local authority there will be, how many official people, and whether the Ministry of Agriculture itself will be represented on these bodies. A lot of people who are enthusiastic about this Bill have not read it. For instance, I said that this refers to people who keep cows. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Ouintin Hogg) said "No." I thought he might know, as he is a lawyer, so I looked it up and I found—

An Hon. Member*: You guessed.

Sir H. Williams: No, I did not, I read quickly and I have a retentive memory.

The Chairman: This does not refer to the question we are discussing.

Sir H. Williams: Certainly it does.

The Chairman: It is not necessary for the hon. Member to take up every remark, relevant or irrelevant.

Sir H. Williams: Excuse me, Major Milner, in the Food and Drugs Act which I have in front of me:
'Dairy' includes any farm … 'Dairyman' includes an occupier of a dairy, a cow keeper, and a purveyor of milk.
I was challenged by the hon. Member supporting this Bill, who represented to the Committee that I was wrong. Surely
*[See OFFICIAL REPORT, 14t12 June, 1944; Vol. 400; c. 1988.]


it is not out of Order, if an hon. Member has been incorrectly cotradicted, for him to point out that he was, in fact, right. I have never heard it was improper in Committee when we are free, to speak as often as we like, provided there is no tedious repetition. Surely it is not improper for an hon. Member gently to point

Division No. 26.
AYES.



Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Fermoy, Lord
Nail, Sir J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Foster, W.
Neat, H.


Apsley, Lady
Gibbins, J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Barr, J.
Glanville, J. E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W)


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Grenfell, D. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Beechman, N. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Benson, G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sloan, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepburn, Major P. G. T, Buchan-
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Storey, S.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Suirdale, Viscount


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
James, Wing-Corn. A. (Well'borough)
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
King-Hail, Commander W. S. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Watson, W. McL.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Walt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Dodd, J. S.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Douglas, F. C. R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Driberg, T. E. N.
MoKinlay, A. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McNeil, H.
Woodburn, A.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
York, Major C.


Dunn, E.
Mathers, G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Eccles, D. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Mr. Pym and Mr. Drewe.


Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Muff, G.





NOES.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Magnay, T.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maxton, J.



Fildes, Sir H.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Furness, S. N.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Mr. Colegate and Mr. Turton.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of s. 22 of principal Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Turton: There is one point I think we ought to clear up before we leave this Clause. Perhaps the Parliamentary

out that he was right and his interrupter was wrong?

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 18.

Secretary can explain the position of producer-retailers vis-à-vis other dairymen. Under this Clause, the producer-retailer will have his licence taken away by the Minister with no right of appeal, whereas other dairymen will have their licences considered by a local authority, with a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I think my hon. Friend is wrong in his first assumption. The Minis-


ter does not intend to take anybody's licence away. What will happen under this Clause is that the producer-retailer will be placed in exactly the same position as any other producer of milk and the Minister's officers will, of course, inspect farm buildings owned or rented by a producer-retailer just as they will inspect buildings, water supply, etc., of other farmers.

Mr. Turton: If you compare a United Dairies shop with a farmer who is a producer-retailer you find this difference, that the question of the cancellation of the United Dairies licence will be considered first by the local authority and then, if they are aggrieved by the decision of the local authority, there is an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. In the same area there may be a producer-retailer with his dairy behind and his shop in front. Whether he has a licence to retail milk will be decided by the Minister of Agriculture, with no right of appeal. It appears to me to be extremely unfair that in the same town we should have two men carrying on the same trade, one with a right of appeal and the other with none at all.

Mr. Williams: When I replied to the hon. Member's first question, I replied exclusively on the producing side of the operations of the producer-retailer. I said the producer-retailer on the productive side would be in an identical position with any other producer of milk. But because the producer-retailer performs two functions, he comes under exactly the same authority for inspection as the United Dairies when selling his milk. Therefore, if any contravention of the Regulations occurred in the distribution of milk, it would be the same authority who would deal with the producer-retailer who would deal with the United Dairies. There is no discrimination at all on the distribution side. There is only a difference because the producer-retailer performs two functions instead of the one performed by United Dairies.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand the position to be this? "A" sells milk from his farm. The question whether he has a licence to sell is decided by the local authority and not by the Minister. On the Second Reading the Minister led me to think that the sale of milk on the farm

by the producer-retailer would be decided by the Minister of Agriculture and not by the local authority.

Mr. Williams: My recollection is that the Minister was referring only to the operations of a producer-retailer on the productive side. It was considered in the initial stages whether or not, because of the duality of the producer-retailer, he might be divorced from the operations of Clause 1. However, the Minister explained clearly why it was felt that the producer-retailer should be left in exactly the same position as any other producer.

Mr. Turton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it quite clear. It appears that the local authority will inspect the farm of a producer-retailer and decide whether he has a licence to sell milk or not. At the same time, on the same farm, the inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture will be inspecting to see whether it is right for his cows to produce milk. Is that clear?

Mr. Williams: I think we can get it straight in a moment, if we exercise a little patience. I think I have made it plain that the producer-retailer only differs from the normal producer, or the normal distributor, because he performs two functions, and the only case where the selling of milk by a producer-retailer would be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, is where the producer-retailer sold his milk from the farm and not through an ordinary dairyman's premises.

Mr. Turton: That is the very point that I put, to which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to give the opposite reply. If a producer retailer is selling his milk on his farm, he will no longer have his licence considered by the local authority and, if he is competing with another producer retailer, he will find himself deprived of the right of appeal which the other man has. That is a point which the Committee should weigh carefully before they pass the Clause. I am sorry to have taken so long to get it out but now we have it clear. You have this anomalous position. The producer retailer who is partly selling off his farm and partly in a shop will find the question whether he has a licence for the shop decided by the local authority and the other part by the Minister of Agriculture. You will have two authorities inspecting the trade of the same man, which does not seem very satisfactory.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will resist this attempt to take power away from the Minister of Agriculture, and take away our power to challenge his decision on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members opposite want little petty agricultural communities where the farming and the landlord fraternity are the dominating factor in these little councils. They were trying last week to get the Minister to agree that a trained legal mind was required. Exactly the same thing happened with the Minister of Health.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I think that we are getting a little far from this Clause, which is on a fairly narrow point and rather a complicated legal one.

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree that it is complicated, but, as far as I can see, the whole aim of the die-hard Tories is to have these duties put into the hands of county councils and local councils because all these little councils have their own inspectors.

Mr. Turton: The only object we have is to get the authorities in England the same as they are in the blessed land of Scotland which the hon. Member represents. If he is dissatisfied with the local authorities, why has he not put an Amendment down to make the Scottish Minister look after Scottish milk as the Minister of Agriculture is doing in England?

The Deputy-Chairman: That would be going much too far.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope I have said enough to let the Parliamentary Secretary realise what is happening. I listened when the question was discussed on the Adjournment, and it was evident that that was the aim and I can see that there is the same aim here. They do not want Members of Parliament to have the power to impeach the Minister. They try to get round it by all manner of means. They have tried it in one instance, and I do not want them to succeed where the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, because he has done a good job and he requires power behind him to enable him to carry on his good work.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I cannot allow what the hon. Gentleman has said to go unchallenged. He said that the opposi-

tion to this Bill was a move of the Right wing Tories. The whole of the party to which the hon. Member used to belong, the Independent Labour Party, went into the Lobby with us.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am not responsible for them; they left me.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: This is an issue which cuts across all parties, and I suggest that Members below the Gangway on this side should look out because if they are not careful they will suffer from the attitude they are taking up.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Compensation to displaced officers.)

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out "that authority," and to insert "the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
We are now dealing with the question of compensation, for those officers who are displaced by the somewhat arbitrary action of the Minister of Agriculture in bringing in this Bill. What the Minister is saying, in effect, to the local authorities is, "We are going to take over a number of your functions, and as a consequence we shall also be taking over a good many of your officers, and if any of them are displaced they will have, and ought to have, the right of compensation, but we are not going to pay it; we expect you to pay it." It is the same as saying, "We cut off your ear and we expect you to pay the doctor's bill." I would like to know what argument there can possibly be in favour of making local authorities pay compensation for those officers whose duties are taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture. There are a number of precedents in which the central authority have taken over the functions of local authorities. We have only to look at Clause 92 of the present Education Bill, which provides that officers whose functions are taken over by the county council from a district council are to be compensated, not by the district council, but by the county council. On that analogy it should be right for the Minister of Agriculture, with Treasury money, to pay any compensation for loss of office to those officers whose


functions are taken over by him. There is another case in the First Schedule to the Education Bill, where the functions of council officers are transferred to a joint board, and the officers are compensated by that joint board. There is no suggestion in existing legislation, where local government officers are displaced by a central authority, that the officers are compensated by the surrendering body. Therefore the Government should show cause for this extraordinary Clause, which says that local authorities, having been forced to surrender their functions and their officers, are obliged to compensate the officers.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister will give consideration to it. He has given consideration to Clause 1, but I know that a few Members have not faith in his word about the committees he will set up. I plead with the Minister to look at this matter again because there is a double-barrelled gun here. The Clause contains the words:
suffers any pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or a diminution of his emolument.
What does the Minister mean by "determination of his appointment"? When the Ministry takes over this inspection from the local authorities, a man may lose his job or a certain amount of his job so that his salary is reduced. I do not know how the Minister will explain this Clause. I guarantee that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that it will do a chap a good turn.
Here is a man who loses his job because the Minister is bringing in a new Measure. The Minister is putting this payment in as superannuation, but it is really compensation for loss of work. The Ministry say to the local authority: "Although we are depriving him of his employment, you must pay for it, despite the fact that we are sacking him." I do not think that is right. If a man is losing his job because the Minister is putting fresh legislation on to the Statute Book, it is the Government and not the local authority who should recompense him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some of my colleagues are asking me to listen to the applause, but I am not worried about the applause from the other side. I am worried about the injustice done to an individual.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is injustice also to the local authorities.

Mr. Griffiths: I know it is, because they have to compensate, but it is unjust also if the person loses his job altogether. The local authorities have sufficient burdens on their shoulders at present without the burden of compensation in consequence of the Government taking over some of their functions. The Minister of Agriculture has just come back. I know he has had to have a cup of tea, but I hope he instructed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to say: "The hon. Member for Hemsworth is correct. Our legal advisers overlooked this point. We shall take it back and put in what the hon.

Member is asking for."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment referred to the compensation payable to persons who have been taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture, and said that it ought to be paid by the Ministry. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) also thought that that was the case. We shall deal later on with cases of superannuation where persons may be taken over; here we are dealing with oases where—if ever they arise—there is no more work for a man because of the change that has taken place. The same position has arisen in other Acts, for example in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.

Mr. Petherick: Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain where I have gone wrong in reading this Clause. It says:
For the purposes of this section, an officer or servant … shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to have suffered direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments in consequence of the passing of this Act.
How can he suffer diminution of his emolument unless he is taken over? If he is not taken over, he loses his job. Does it not imply that he is, in fact, taken over? Otherwise he could not suffer diminution.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think I can make the point clear. There might be cases where men were doing extra work for the local authorities and being paid for it, but that extra work has now gone. This is the case of a person who has


either lost his work with the local authority or has had his work reduced because of this new legislation. This has happened before: in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, under which outdoor relief ceased to be payable by public assistance authorities to certain classes of person; in the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, under which the Minister of Transport became the highway authority for certain roads; in the Agriculture Act, 1937, under which a national service of veterinary inspectors was established; and in the Old Age and Widows' Pension Act, 1940, which instituted supplementary old age pensions and made it unlawful for a public assistance authority to give outdoor relief to persons in receipt of old age pensions. Those are all cases where, new legislation having been introduced, officials of local authorities have less work to do because work which had been done by those authorities is now being done by other authorities. The staffs of some authorities were greatly reduced because of the Old Age and Widows' Pension Act, and so Section 17 of the Act made provision for compensation of the officers of those authorities in exactly the same way as we are suggesting in the Bill.
The Amendment relates to those who have either become redundant, of which I think there will be very few, or those whose work has been reduced, and hon. Members have asked why local authorities should pay the compensation. The local authority is going to pay less because certain burdens are being taken off them. They are not to do this work of supervision and they will, at any rate, pay less. It would, therefore, fall to them to pay compensation to any of their servants whom they do not employ, in exactly the same way as was done in the cases which I have cited. If there is a case where someone becomes redundant and is not taken over, or whom they do not employ, it is for the local authority to pay the compensation. In many cases there will not be redundant officers. The difficulty will be rather a shortage than a redundancy.

Sir E. Grigg: I hope that my hon. Friend will not cling to the argument that this is just because it has been done before. Many unjust things have been done before. Certain duties are being taken over from the local authorities and certain men are to be thrown out of their

jobs or part of their jobs. The suggestion is that the compensation for that loss of work, which is entirely due to the Government of which my hon. Friend is a Member, should be paid by the local authority. That seems to me to be extremely unfair. The action is taken by Whitehall; the compensation should be paid by Whitehall. And may I tell the hon. Lady that it seems to me clear and definite that the fact that this particular injustice has been committed before, only makes me very ashamed that it has been committed before? When injustice occurs, let us put an end to it at some time or other. It is one of the things for which we are here. There is another reason. Local authorities dealing with old servants, finding that they must employ them or give them pensions for doing nothing, are bound to be in the difficult position of saying, "Let us find a job for them to do." It is the very worst way of dealing with this kind of question. They will try one subterfuge after another to compensate people suffering, not through their actions but entirely through the action of the central Government. It seems to me, with great respect, that she has not made a case which the Committee can easily accept. Surely this House can sometimes go back on precedent. The fact that there is a precedent, does not prove it is right. I appeal to the party opposite. I do not want to make a partisan thing of it, but the fact that it has been done for a long time, does not prove that it is right. That is the case I am making. Let us make a new start some time. I suggest that the time to make a new start with this particular injustice is now.

Earl Winterton: So far from agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he has made out a case at all. I ask him and his associates to answer the points that I shall put to the Committee. If he wishes to take exception to my use of the word "associates" I am prepared to give way.

Sir E. Grigg: I have no objection to the way my Noble Friend refers to me or my hon. Friends, though hon. Friends is a more common term in this House.

Earl Winterton: I will certainly say his hon. Friends. I am anxious not to excite him; I am anxious to calm him. I am putting to him, humble individual as I am, worm as I stand, my argument. I


will put it, I hope, with courtesy as high as that of my hon. Friend. He made an attack on the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am entitled to defend her. He said that she made out no case at all. I suggest that she made out a case. The first point she put was that we had done this constantly in the past. My hon. Friend very properly said that because a thing had been done in the past was no reason why it should be done again. I agree, unless the reason it was done in the past was a sound and a valid reason. I suggest it was a very sound and valid reason. What has been done in the past, and what is being done in this Clause, is this: The Government have asked the Committee to say that where a person loses his or her job, and suffers diminution of salary, that person shall be compensated. Unless there is something in the Bill to that effect it would be open to any local authority to get rid of their servants without any compensation. How else could it be done?

Mr. Petherick: The Noble Lord says that there shall be compensation by the local authority—not merely that they shall be compensated but that they shall be compensated by the local authority.

Earl Winterton: I have had some experience of opposing a Bill and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to put my case. I was dealing with the question of compensation. I ask for an answer. I say that unless this is put into the Bill it is an injustice to these employees. Otherwise the local authority would have the right to get rid of an employee without compensation.

Mr. Petherick: The answer is, who pays?

Earl Winterton: I will deal with that point. The opponents of the Bill having agreed with the Government and myself that these people must be compensated, the argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary seems to me a perfectly sound one, though I am open to conviction. The only reason I rose was because my hon. Friend said that the hon. Lady has made out no case. In regard to the local authority and as to who should pay, I say that it is fair the local authority should pay for this reason; because, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the local authority, as a result of this Bill, will be

relieved of paying a very considerable sum of money.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Who said so?

Earl Winterton: Does anybody deny that?

Sir E. Grigg: The Noble Lord keeps on shouting questions at me. I would rather hear the whole of his case and then reply to his questions.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I deny it. I want to ask the Noble Lord who is the cause of the determination.

Earl Winterton: We are not dealing with the question of determination. Let us introduce a little logic into the discussion. I ask any hon. Gentleman to get up afterwards and deny this proposition; I put it in the simplest, and I hope in the clearest, form. Local authorities are to be relieved of a very considerable expense under this Bill, very large expense indeed. Is that denied?

Mr. Colegate: Of course it is denied. There is not necessarily a very large saving. It entirely depends on the local authority and the number of people they employ. It might not necessarily be a large saving if a local authority has its functions diminished. It is largely a question of the number of officials and the amount of compensation.

Earl Winterton: Obviously if employees are not to be dismissed the Clause does not arise. I say, and I challenge anyone to deny, that in all cases where they have to dispense with the services of their employees, it means that they will be saved expense in the future because they will no longer have to pay that expense. [Interruption.] An hon. Member may say it is quite a different story, but it is the case I put to the Committee. If he would be less vociferous, I would ask him to answer this question. Does he deny that the only way in which the Bill can operate is in the case where a local authority will be saved expense in the future because they have lost employees?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am going to take up the Noble Lord. He is coming here rather late in the day—

Earl Winterton: No, I have been here all day and listened to all the speeches.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Has the Noble Lord taken into consideration the expense of these new proposals the Minister is making? How do we know, for example, how these county committees are to be paid for?

Earl Winterton: I should not be in Order to discuss that now. I am dealing with a specific point. In respect of this item I again challenge opponents of the Bill to deny it; there must be a saving to the local authority if this portion of the Clause operates.

Sir E. Grigg: We are in an unusual position in this Debate: we are dealing with two Government Front Benches. They do not say exactly the same thing. I congratulate the Noble Lord on the new position he takes up. He does it with great effect and great eloquence.

Earl Winterton: Does my hon. Friend suggest that no one has a right to put a counter case to him? Is one necessarily a member of the Government if one does not agree with his massive intelligence?

Sir E. Grigg: I said that the Noble Lord distinguished himself, as he always does in argument, in supporting the Government Front Bench. I congratulate him upon his success. I am sorry that he should regard that as being in any way an insult; I meant it as a compliment. I listened with the greatest attention to the argument which he put, often interrupted, as it was, by rhetorical questions, which made it difficult for one to follow the thread. He says that the Parliamentary Secretary made a perfectly good case because she said that the local authorities were going to be relieved of some expenditure, and that, as they were going to be relieved of that expenditure, they might just as well meet other expenditure, whether it was just or not. The fact that they are to be relieved of some expenditure has no bearing on this case at all. The plain fact which I put is that the man who deprives another man of his job should compensate him. That is a plain principle, and a just principle.

Mr. Turton: I do not want to repeat what has been said by my hon. Friends, but I would like the hon. Lady to answer one question. What is the difference between the position under this Bill and the position under the Education Bill and under the Local Government

Bill? Under both those Bills, I understand, the compensating authority is the authority which ought to have received the officer but which did not wish to take the officer over. For all I know, the Unemployment Assistance Act and the Old Age Pensions Act have a different system; but if we have the choice of two systems we should see which is the fairest. Should the taxpayer or the ratepayer assume this burden? My hon. Friend said that, when this Bill is passed, the ratepayers will have a smaller burden in respect of the inspection of cowsheds, etc. There is a great deal in that, but I do not think it goes to the root of the problem, because in nine cases out of 10, the Minister of Agriculture will say to the local authority, "We will certainly take over all your officials," and in the tenth, not through any fault of the local authority or of the ratepayer, but through some juxtaposition of another authority, he will say, "I am not going to take over your sanitary inspector, for certain reasons quite unconnected with his conduct," as this Bill makes clear in Clause 5, Sub-section (2, d). Does this Committee think it right that the ratepayers of that area should bear a burden that the ratepayers of the other nine areas are bearing? That is a misfortune which the taxpayers should shoulder. There is no large sum involved. There is to-day no large surplus of officials, but a great shortage of officials, and this thing will happen very rarely. But later on there may come a demand for very heavy compensation from a small authority, and I think it should be spread over the whole community, rather than that the ratepayers of one area should suffer.

Mr. Petherick: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) seemed to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and his supporters, of whom I am one, have some peculiar and sinister motive in taking up the attitude which we have taken up.

Earl Winterton: No, I merely said that I would like to answer his case. I suppose one may still answer a case in this House, or does one have to ask permission first from the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick)?

Mr. Petherick: The only permission one needs is that of the Chair. The Noble


Lord has not made out the case which we might reasonably have expected from him. [Interruption.] I always enjoy an obbligato when I am speaking, particularly the sort of obbligato which comes from the Noble Lord, because it makes one's argument go more smoothly. The Noble Lord has not answered our case, which was that it was not equitable that the local authorities, who have had their functions taken over, should still be expected to pay the compensation of those officers who suffer diminution of their emoluments. Take the simple analogy of a public company which takes over the assets and liabilities of another company. In this case, the Minister of Agriculture has taken over the assets and the liabilities of the local authorities in respect of certain functions regarding milk. The assets are, broadly speaking, the right to supervise the production of milk. The liabilities are the obligation to pay the officers who are carrying out the administration. Here the assets have been taken over, but the liabilities have not been taken over in toto. Therefore. I cannot see how it is possible, in equity, to say that, merely because the local authorities are being relieved of most of their pecuniary obligations, the central Government should be relieved of their obligation to pay compensation. The Government take over some of the officers, they take over all the functions, but still the local authorities are left with the obligation to pay this compensation. Nothing which the Noble Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister has said shows how that can be done in equity.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I came down here rather in favour of the Amendment, but I must say that, after hearing the speeches of its supporters, I feel the other way. They remind me of the Duke of Wellington, who, when asked once what was the best speech he had ever heard, said he could not remember, but that the speech least likely to have the effect which it was intended to have, was that of a Portuguese general, who, speaking to his men when they were about to take part in a forlorn hope, said: "Men, remember that you are Portuguese." The argument I have heard seems to have the opposite effect to what was intended.

Major Petherick: The Duke of Wellington did at least fight.

Sir D. Gunston: Well, I will pay the hon. Member the compliment of saying that he fought very well, even if not clear what he was fighting against. The question is—are the local authorities to suffer as a whole and is any injustice going to be done to any individual? Obviously, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it is the duty of this House to see that no injustice is done to any individual who loses his job, or part of a job, but I cannot see how my hon. Friend, with his great ability and experience, can really suggest that local authorities are going to be worse off if we reject this Amendment, because, of course, we are going to relieve the local authorities of a certain amount, and we are safeguarding not only the ratepayers but the taxpayers as well, and the hon. Member has to think about the taxpayers, too. Are we really to say that, when we pass a Bill which relieves the local authorities of expenditure, that relief, therefore, should entirely be given to the local authorities? Obviously, under this Bill, certain local authorities will have less expense than they had before, and it seems to me to be only right that when they have that net gain, we should not agree with this Amendment. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) suggested that it will relieve the local authority of a bit, but not much, because most of the men are doing the work, or part of the work, at the moment.

Mr. Colegate: Actually, I wrote down the words I used, and this is what I said. "It is not necessarily a very large saving; it is largely a question of the number of officials concerned and the amount of the superannuation."

Sir D. Gunston: I quite agree that it probably is not very much. At the same time, on the whole, there will be a fairly large saving throughout the country.

Mr. Buchanan: I should hesitate to intervene in the quarrel going on between two ex-members of a Government, and I cannot see—

Earl Winterton: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to do me an injustice. I only want to point out that, while I have been in many bad Governments in my time, I have never been a Member of the same Government as the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Buchanan: Well, it happens in my own party. I should like to say that on this subject hon. Members can get all "het up" on either side. Some say that these charges ought to be on the Government and some say they should be on local authorities. I might make a speech with considerable eloquence which would not convince anybody. On the facts of the matter, I do not think there is much in it, in money cost, and I say this because I remember what was done in the 1934 Act. You have agreed that men should get compensation. When it comes to the kind of man most likely to be dispossessed—the older man, the man of middle age—I prefer the Government's line, but for different reasons. Are you likely to get compensation easily, if you are in a Yorkshire village, by coming down to Whitehall to conduct your negotiations? Frankly, I would not want to do it. The man has to start his negotiations with Whitehall, instead of in the locality in which he lives.

Mr. Petherick: Am I wrong in thinking that that is quite covered?

Mr. Buchanan: I know it is, but there will be all sorts of interpretations, and if I were the man on the spot, and particularly if I were an elderly servant, I would know that the local authority for whom I had done good service, would give me the best rate possible when it came to compensation. But, when you go to Whitehall, first getting into Whitehall to negotiate is one problem. It is becoming a problem in these days for a Member of Parliament to get into Whitehall, never mind getting compensation. I could make out an eloquent case that it should be made a national charge, and, just as easily, a case that local savings ought to be paid to the local authorities. Both of these cases could be made out, and I do not think they are inconsistent. I think that, if I were a local government servant, round about middle age, who had to start to negotiate, I should feel that the local authority was much more easy of access, that they understood me and my point of view, and that, as a result, the treatment I should get from them would be better.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I want to quote the clerk to one of the councils in my area, whose opinion I asked on the whole matter. He said:
We are in a fair way to losing all officials and officers, and others who work for us, and

in whose work we are proud and whose services we are very loath to part with. In addition, their services are to be taken away by a Minister, they are to become civil servants which they do not wish to do, and, in addition to that, if there should be any direct pecuniary loss falling upon them, because we have paid them rather more than they will get as civil servants, we will have to pay the difference, and we think it is adding insult to injury.

Mr. Colegate: I support the Amendment, a little on the grounds of principle, but mainly on purely practical grounds. The whole atmosphere of this Bill is that, if local authorities do not come up to scratch, their powers can be taken away and given to Whitehall. However that may be, this raises a practical question. That is, how many obstacles can we put in the way of the central Government nibbling away at the functions of local government? Therefore, I am all in for the services of those whom they disfavour of making them pay compensation possess, if they do take away local government functions. Actually, the question of precedents is almost irrelevant. The circumstances are different and the whole atmosphere is so serious that it is time a new precedent was created.

Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman: In calling upon the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) to move the next Amendment, I hope he will move it in the manuscript form and not in the words on the Order Paper.

Mr. Burden: I was hoping, Mr. Williams, that you would have called the previous Amendment standing in my name—in page 3, line 35, at end, insert:
For the purposes of this section any such officer or servant as aforesaid shall include a person who is engaged in war service but was, immediately before undertaking war service, an officer or servant of a local authority.
Because there is a very important principle involved.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am calling the last Amendment to Clause 5 in the name of the hon. Gentleman which I have had handed to me in manuscript form.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end, to insert:
and where any such period is so reckoned his emoluments during that period shall, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of para-


graph 4 of the said Schedule, be deemed to be such as he would have received if he had not been engaged in war service.
I do not quite know why I am moving the Amendment, because I am advised that men and women serving in the Forces at the present time are not protected in the event of their positions being wiped out or becoming redundant, or of their having suffered any diminution in their emoluments. Therefore, it is a trifle difficult to make out a case for the Amendment, when those who are serving with the Forces are not protected by the compensation Clauses. The object of the Amendment is, that, in the event of compensation being payable, any salary increases which may have accrued while the man or woman was serving in the Forces or any permanent increments, together with the period for which they are serving in the Forces, should be calculated if and when compensation becomes payable. That is a very desirable addition to the Clause, because, unless the words that I am moving are added, should compensation become payable, the salary on which it is calculated would be the salary paid at the time the person entered the Forces, and the period for which he so served in the Forces would not be brought into the calculation of the number of years on which superannuation is payable. That is the brief case for the Amendment, but I go back, as I am bound to do, to the rather wider question. Is it possible for this compensation to be paid if those serving in the Forces are not protected by way of compensation? If it is the case that the Parliamentary draftsmen have overlooked the position of those serving in the Forces, this is a very grave thing indeed.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss that question on an Amendment of this kind.

Mr. Burden: I appreciate that, and submit with respect that I am entitled to ask whether this Amendment will actually become operative in the case of persons to whom it is presumably going to apply.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we are able to accept the Amendment, and, though I cannot range over other subjects, I can assure him that those serving in the Forces have not been overlooked, and their cases will

be covered in the action which the Government will take.

Mr. Hutchinson: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the position of those serving in the Forces will be met by the action which the Government propose to take. May I ask her to go a step further and indicate what action they propose to take?

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Turton: At this juncture it might be helpful if the Minister could say how far he wants to go to-day. If we can be told, it may ease the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Hudson: We want to get on with the Bill, and I think we ought to get the Committee stage to-day.

Mr. Burden: It would be ungracious if I did not express on behalf of the National Association of Local Government Officers and myself our appreciation of the acceptance of my Amendment.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Superannuation rights of officers transferred from local authorities.)

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Mr. Williams, to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick)—in page 4, line 38, at end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Part of this Schedule shall impose upon a county council any obligation to pay to the Treasury any amount other than the pensionable officer's contribution to the superannuation fund established by the council under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937.
It deals with a different point from that on Clause 5.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am afraid not.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 5 line 42, to leave out from "products" to the end of the Sub-section.
The Amendment provides that if any question arises as to the milk produced on the farm, the question shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. This Sub-section raises again a question on which the Committee has previously expressed a strong opinion. Where a question arises between a Minister and persons who are concerned in his administration, it is not a desirable thing that the determination of that question be left solely to the Minister. This is a matter which will be affected by the concession which the Minister made earlier to-day, that questions arising between him and applicants for registration should be considered by a tribunal set up under the Regulations, I suppose. The effect would be to exclude from the considerations of that tribunal the question of milk produced on a farm which forms an essential part of a product or compound. These questions ought not to be left solely to the Minister. It makes him judge as well as prosecutor in his own case.

Mr. Hudson: The Amendment, as I have it, is to leave out from "products" to the end of the Sub-section. The Amendment, as originally drafted, would have abolished the definition of "dairy farmer," "principal Act," "raw milk" and "War Service," and was, therefore, clearly wrong. The inclusion of the words in the definition of "dairy farm" is intended to cover cases in which butter and cheese are made on the farm from milk produced wholly or mainly on the farm. Clearly someone has to define a borderline case when it arises, and it is most proper that the Minister should do so.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, to leave out "produces," and to insert "obtains."

Mr. Turton: I rise on a very short point. The question is whether the dairyman educes this milk or whether he produces it or obtains it. I think this word "produces" is wrong.

Mr. Petherick: I should have thought that the appropriate word was "obtains" and not "produces."

Mr. Hudson: This is a drafting Amendment but it is thoroughly wrong. The expression "producer of milk" is accepted, and I think ought to be re-

tained, and the principal Act refers to producers of milk. If the word "obtains" is inserted, it brings retailers within the definition of a dairy farmer because a retailer can be said to obtain milk from cows, although he does not actualy produce it from cows.

Mr. Petherick: Actually, neither does the dairy farmer; it is only the cows that produce milk. Although it has been accepted, I do not think it is necessarily a good term. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture should think again and give us a better and more correct term.

Mr. Hudson: It is a better term than "obtains."

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Section 22 of principal Act as amended by this Act.)

Mr. T. J. Brooks: I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, after "Fisheries," to insert:
that the regulations will not be or are not being complied with or.
The local authority can refuse or cancel registration where the public health is being or is likely to be endangered. The local authority, I submit, should not be burdened. This danger to health is a matter upon which medical and other opinion might differ very strongly and judgment in such a case should not be based upon opinion but upon fact. Compliance or non-compliance with regulations is a matter of fact and the local authority should be enabled, just as the Minister is enabled, to exercise its powers simply on the ground that the regulations will not be or are not being complied with. If we do not have these words inserted, local authorities may be subjected to further criticisms on future occasions, as they have been in the past, to the effect that they have not supervised milk distribution adequately. Unless the Bill is amended on this line, it will be impossible for them to do so.

Miss Horsbrugh: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. I hope he will realise that, in this Schedule, we are dealing with the policy of the Food and Drugs Act of which we have had experience and which I think has


worked well. I realise that the hon. Gentleman thinks it will be improved by the admission of those words but I do not think so, and the points he has put to the Committee can be borne in mind without adding the words. I hope that with that assurance he will agree not to press it; if we were to find that we thought it would make some improvement, we could deal with it at a further stage. My advice at the present moment is that it will not improve the Schedule.

Mr. Brooks: If a record is made of that promise, I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, to leave out, "seven," and to insert "fourteen."
It seems to me that seven days is very short notice in which a defaulter may make representations, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to make the term longer in view of the concession which he made earlier in the proceedings.

Miss Horsbrugh: Again we are dealing with a scheme we have worked in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Local authorities have worked these provisions and we have not had any complaints. I ask my hon. Friend not to press for 14 days instead of seven, because we think that there should be as little delay as possible if there is a complaint.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "court of sumary jurisdiction," and to insert "county court."
This subject was discussed for a time earlier to-day and for that reason I hope it will not be necessary to detain the Committee very long at this stage. I do not desire to appear to cast any aspersions upon courts of summary jurisdiction. Such courts, doing their own work, are very good tribunals indeed. But they are not suitable tribunals to hear appeals from the decisions of local authorities in their various administrative capacities. In the first place the arrangements of a court of summary jurisdiction are not suitable for hearing cases of this type.
These courts are normally concerned with small cases which can be heard fairly quickly. They have a large number of cases to deal with and a great quantity of business to get through in the course of a day. This type of case involves the evidence of technical witnesses and frequently the consideration of sections of Acts of Parliament and usually occupies a considerable time. It is most inconvenient for a court of summary jurisdiction to break off from its normal work to deal with a case of that kind. I can assure the Committee that I have some experience of cases of this nature. I rather deprecate hon. Members drawing on their own personal experiences, but this happens to be a subject on which I can speak with some personal knowledge. I know of the great inconvenience which is caused both to tribunals and to the parties themselves by this practice of providing an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction from a local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably say that this has been done on a great many occasions. It is perfectly true that the hon. Lady can point to innumerable precedents where this House has provided for an appeal of this nature; but the answer to that argument is that the experience of the working of these Acts has shown that these courts are not suitable tribunals in this class of work.
There is another reason why it is desirable that a change should be made. These cases will already have been heard by a body which hears it informally—the committee of the local authority or whoever determines it in the first instance—and after that it is desirable that the case should go to a fully judicial body presided over by a county court judge who is accustomed to construe Acts of Parliament, listen to expert witnesses and form his conclusions upon evidence of that sort. It is a much more satisfactory type of appeal than an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to lay aside the argument of what has been done in the past and consider the matter afresh and see whether the Minister cannot agree to making a change in this practice, which frankly I regard as undesirable. I hope the Minister will be able to break away from the fetters of tradition and consent to these appeals being heard by a tribunal which is the most competent and convenient tribunal to deal with them.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend thinks that I am fettered by tradition and has warned me against the horrors of such a condition, because we have tried to look at this Schedule from the point of view of the best possible way of working the scheme and of helping local authorities and those with whom they have to deal My hon. and learned Friend asks us to make a change, but the difficulty is that in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, local authorities have powers to deal with other licences and registrations. For these there is the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, and I think the matter will be tangled if we do as he suggests. I noted that during the discussion on Clause 1 hon. Members said that so long as they could go to a court of law they did not mind whether it was a court of summary jurisdiction or a county court. That gave me encouragement, as I knew that I would have to reply to this Amendment later. I am not fettered by tradition, and I think I have put up a fairly good case for leaving the matter where it is.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, at the end, to insert:
and if such a court does not cancel his registration the Minister of Health may not subsequently cancel his registration on account of the same offence for which he was convicted.
If it had been possible to insert earlier in the Bill the part of the Schedule on

which the Amendment is based, I should have felt compelled, in default of an adequate explanation, to carry on the Debate for some time because it represents a rather important point. Sub-section (4) says that a court which convicts a dairyman of an offence can, in addition to any other penalties it sees fit to inflict upon him, cancel his registration. The words that I wish to insert, make it clear that the Minister could not over-ride the decision of the court, supposing the court failed to consider that cancellation of the registration was necessary. The decision of the court ought to be final. If it cancels the registration, that should be final. If it fails to cancel the registration, that should be final, too. Certainly the Minister should not at a later stage have power to rake up what he might think was a faulty decision of the court and seek to over-ride it.

Miss Horsbrugh: My hon. Friend need have no fear of any over-riding by the Minister of Health. He has no power in this Bill to cancel any registration.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]